EPA-90V9-78-024
                        Environmental  Impact Statement
                                   Conference
                      U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                                    Region  IV
                             Atlanta Civic Center
                             395 Piemont Avenue
                            Atlanta, Georgia 30308

                               7-8 December 1977

-------

-------
                           INTRODUCTION
"The purpose of the Conference is to get to know each other better and
to discuss how we can improve the preparation and review of environmental
impact statements.  NEPA has been on the books now for seven years.  I
feel that one of the things that brought about NEPA was the fact that
man's ability to modify his environment had increased much faster than
his ability to predict the consequences of such actions.  There has been
considerable concern expressed about the costs in money and time to
complete the NEPA process.  We in EPA feel that all Federal agencies
have a continuing responsibility to insure consideration of environmental
amenities in governmental decision making.  The cost of EIS preparation
and review by Federal agencies in the Southeast is millions of dollars
annually.  I hope this Conference will help us improve our efficiency in
accomplishing the NEPA process and will result in a significantly improved
quality of the human environment."

-------
                           SCHEDULE OF EVENTS/CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 7, 1977, Room 201
1:00 p.m.
Welcome
John C. White
Regional Administrator
EPA Region IV, Atlanta
1:15 p.m.
The New CEQ Guidelines
Nick Yost
CEQ, Washington, D.C.
2:45 p.m.


3:00 p.m.
Coffee Break


Endangered Species
Robert Cook
Fish 6e Wildlife Service
Atlanta
4:30 p.m.
Prime and Unique Farmlands
Mark Safley
Soil Conservation Service
Nashville, Tennessee
5:00 p.m.
Getting to Know Each Other
Crystal Ballroom
Section E
Hilton Hotel

-------
Thursday, December 8, 1977, Room 104
8:15 a.m.     Wild and Scenic Rivers
                                                       Fred Klimas
                                                       Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
                                                       Atlanta (no abstract received)
                                                       Claude Terry
                                                       Claude Terry & Associates
                                                       Atlanta (no abstract received)
9:30 a.m.
              Coffee Break
9:45 a.m.
              Revision to Clean Air Act
Randy Mayfield
EPA, Atlanta
10:45 a.m.    Archaeology and Historic Preservation
                                                       Elizabeth Lyon
                                                       Historic Preservation
                                                       Department of Natural Resources
                                                       State of Georgia (no abstract
                                                                               received)
11:30 a.m.    Lunch

1:00 p.m.     Workshops I, II, III, IV

2:30 p.m.     Coffee Break

2:45 p.m.     Workshops I, II, III, IV

4:15 p.m.,    Closing Remarks
                                                       Benny Keel
                                                       National Park Service
                                                       Atlanta
                                                       John E. Hagan
                                                       Chief, EIS Branch, EPA
                                                       Atlanta
LIST OF ATTENDEES

-------
                       CEQ's New Regulations
                         Nicholas C.  Yost

I.    PRESIDENT CARTER'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 11991 (May 24, 1977), which
     directs the Council on Environmental Quality to:

     "Issue regulations to Federal agencies for implementation of
     the procedural provisions of [NEPA].  Such regulations shall
     be developed after consultation with affected agencies and
     after such public hearings as shall be appropriate.  They will
     be designed to make the environmental impact statement process
     more useful to decision-makers and the public; and to reduce
     paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data,
     in order to emphasize the need to focus on real environmental
     issues and alternatives.  They will require impact statements
     to be concise, clear, and to the point, and supported by
     evidence that agencies have made the necessary environmental
     analyses.  The Council shall include in its regulations pro-
     cedures (1) for the early preparation of environmental impact
     statements, and (2) for the referral to the Council of conflicts
     between agencies concerning the implementation of  [NEPA]."
II.  PROCESS OF ADOPTING NEPA REGULATIONS

     1.  Federal Register Notices
     2.  Hearings
     3.  Questionnaire
     4.  Meetings with Agencies
     5.  Future Schedule
III. REDUCING PAPERWORK

     Agencies shall reduce excess paperwork by:

     (a)  Reducing the length of environmental impact statements
(section 1502.2(d)), such as by adopting appropriate page limits
(section 1501.7(b)(1)).

     (b)  Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental
impact statements (section 1502.2(a)).

-------
     (c)  Discussing only briefly issues other than significant ones
(section 1502.2(b)).

     (d)  Writing environmental impact statements in plain language
(section 1502.8).

     (e)  Following a clear format for environmental impact statements
(section 1502.10).

     (f)  Emphasizing the portions of the environmental impact state-
ment that are useful to decisionmakers and the public (section 1502.14
and 1502.14) and reducing emphasis on background material (section
1502.16).

     (g)  Using the scoping process not only to identify significant
environmental issues deserving of study, but also to dismiss insignif-
icant issues, narrowing the scope of the environmental impact statement
process accordingly (section 1501.7).

     (h)  Summarizing the environmental impact statement (section 1502.12)
and circulating the summary instead of the entire environmental impact
statement if the latter is unusually long (section 1502.19).

     (i)  Using program, policy, or plan environmental impact statements
and tiering from statements of broad scope to those of narrower scope to
eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues (sections 1502.14
and 1502.20).

     (j)  Incorporating by reference (section 1502.21).

     (k)  Integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review
and consultation requirements  (section 1502.25).

     (1)  Requiring comments to be as specific as possible  (section 1503^3).

     (m)  Attaching and circulating only changes to the draft environ-
mental impact statement, rather than rewriting and circulating the entire
statement when changes are minor  (sections 1503.4(b) and 1503.5(b)).

     (n)  Eliminating duplication with State and local procedures by
providing for joint preparation (section 1506.2) and with other Federal
procedures by providing for one agency's adoption of appropriate environ-
mental documents prepared by another agency  (section 1506.3).

     (o)  Combining environmental documents with other documents (section
1506.4).

     (p)  Using  categorical exclusions to exclude from environmental
impact statement requirements  categories of  actions which do  not indi-
vidually or  cumulatively have  a significant  effect on the human environment
(section 1508.4).


                              - 2 -

-------
     (q)  Using a finding of no significant impact and not preparing an
environmental impact statement when an action not otherwise excluded
will not have a significant effect on the human environment (section
1508.12).
IV.  REDUCING DELAY

     Agencies shall reduce delay by:

     (a)  Integrating the NEPA process into early planning (section
1501.2).

     (b)  Emphasizing interagency cooperation before the environmental
impact statement is drafted rather than adversary comments on a completed
document (section 1501.6).!

     (c)  Insuring the swift and fair resolution of lead agency disputes
(section 1501.5).

     (d)  Using the scoping process for an early identification of what
are and what are not the real issues (section 1501.7).

     (e)  Establishing appropriate time limits for the environmental
impact statement process (sections 1501.7(b)(2) and 1501.8).

     (f)  Preparing environmental impact statements early in the process
(section 1502.5).

     (g)  Integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental review
and consultation requirements (section 1502.25).

     (h)  Eliminating duplication with State and local procedures by
providing for joint preparation (section 1506.2) and with other Federal
procedrues by providing for one agency's adoption of appropriate environ-
mental documents prepared by another agency (section 1506.3).

     (i)  Combining environmental documents with other documents (section
1506.4).

     (j)  Using accelerated procedures for proposals for legislation
(section 1506.8).

     (k)  Using categorical exclusions to exclude from environmental
impact statement requirements categories of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment
(section 1508.4).

     (1)  Using a finding of no significant impact and not preparing an
environmental impact statement when an action not otherwise excluded
will not have a significant effect on the human environment (section
1508.12).

                               - 3 -

-------
V.   NOT JUST BETTER PAPERWORK, BUT BETTER DECISIONS

     1.  All of 102(2)

     2.  Interdisciplinary preparation
          a.  Agency capability to comply
          b.  List of preparers

     3.  Write in plain language

     4.  Decision based on impartial analyses
          a.  Restrictions of conflict of interest by applicants

     5.  Predecision Referrals —
          a.  Sec. 309   )   Interim guidance
          b.  NEPA       )

     6.  Emphasis on decisions

          a.  Record of decision — how was EIS used
          b.  Is the result environmentally satisfactory

     7.  Emphasis on follow-up

          a.  Requires mitigation
          b.  Monitoring and enforcement
          c.  Report back
Our twin goals were those of reducing emphasis on paperwork arid procedure
and reemphasizing environmentally sensitive decisions.  I hope we will have
achieved those goals.

-------
  Endangered Species Act (1973)    C. Robert Cooke, Jr.
     While the Endangered Species Act of 1973 addresses all aspects of
the preservation, and enhancement, and well-being of species threatened
with extinction, the principal topic of our discussion deals with responsi-
bilities of Federal Agencies as provided under Section 7 of the Act.

     Section 7 states:
          SEC. 7.  The Secretary shall review other programs
     administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance
     of the purposes of this Act.  All other Federal departments
     and agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance
     of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of
     the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conser-
     vation of endangered species and threatened species listed
     pursuant to section 4 of this Act and by taking such action
     necessary to insure that actions authorized, funded,  or carried
     out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such
     endangered species and threatened species or result in the
     destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is
     determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate
     with the affected States, to be critical.

I would now like to give a brief step down sequence of the Consultation
Process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  It might
be noted here that consultation can only be carried out between a Federal
agency and the Service.

It is the obligation and responsibility of the Federal agencies to
analyze and review their activities and programs to ascertain if listed
species or their habitats will be affected beneficially or detrimentally.
If the Federal agencies or their authorized representatives desire the
assistance of the FWS in determining the effects of their actions,
informal consultation can and should be initiated at the area office
level between the FWS and the Federal agencies or their authorized

-------
representatives.  This level of communication will be particularly useful
for obtaining information on listed species or their habitats or clari-
fying the consultation process.  It may also assist the Federal agencies
in confirming their analysis or judgment of beneficial or detrimental
effects that could result from their planned action on listed species or
their habitats.  Such consultation is supplement to and not a substitute
for the formal consultation.

If a Federal agency judges that listed species or their habitats will
not be affected by the agency actions, the requirements of Section 7
will not apply.

If it is considered likely that listed species or their habitats could
be affected, the agency should convey a written request for consultation
to the Regional Director for the Region where the activity of program
will be carried out.

The FWS may become aware of an agency's planning or conducting an
activity or program that could affect listed species or their habitats
that has not received the benefit of the consultation process.  When this
situation exists the Regional Director will promptly notify the agency
stating the nature of the action, and requesting that the consultation
process be initiated.

Following the request for consultation from the Federal agency the
Regional Director may arrange for a "threshold examination" of the
area in which the activity or program is proposed to be carried out.
A threshold exam may consist of an on-site inspection of the area and/or
a review of available information to make a preliminary assessment as to
whether listed species or their habitats will be impacted.

If the Regional Director is of the opinion, as a result of the threshold
exam, (1) the continued existence of a listed species will not be
jeopardized, (2) the area to be impacted will not be determined by further
examination to be critical habitat, or (3) the action will not result in
the destriction or modification of critical habitat, the Agency will so

-------
be notified in.writing and further consultation will be unnecessary.

If the Regional Director as a result of the threshold examination is
of the opinion that the action may result in jeopardizing the continued
existence of listed species or the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat, he will so notify the agency, in writing and a time
frame in which the consultation process should be completed will be
established in agreement with the Federal agency.  The Federal agency
with the assistance of the FWS, state, private, or other sources of
expertise shall then initiate appropriate surveys, studies, research and
other means to obtain data and information relative to the impacts of the
activity on listed species or their habitats.  The data and information
will be used by the Regional Director in rendering his final biological
opinion.

If the Regional Director as a result of the threshold examination is of
the opinion that the activity will destroy or modify habitat that may-
be essential to the survival or recovery of listed species but which has
not been determined to be critical, he shall so notify the agency, in
writing, and promptly initiate procedures to determine if the area is
"critical habitat".

Consultation referred to in Section 7 will have been completed when the
Regional Director has notified, in writing, the Federal Agency of the
final biological opinion.  If requested by the agency the FWS shall make
recommendations.  Such biological opinion and recommendations shall be
accompanied by a statement of the reasons and biological evidence,
including appropriate documentation, contributing to the opinions and
recommendations.  Upon receipt of the biological opinion and recommen-
dations of the FWS, it will be the prerogative and responsibility of
the Federal agency to determine the final course of action that it will
follow in light of its statutory requirements.

-------
The consultation and assistance process clearly should be reflected in
a written record from its inception to completion.   Where the consultation
requirements or procedures related to other laws or procedures, such as
NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, have been used to
facilitate the consultation and assistance process, it should be reflected
clearly in the final documents required by these other laws (e.g.,
Environmental Impact Statement, environmental  analyses, or assessments,
Fish and Wildlife reports, etc.).  However, the satisfaction of the
requirements of these other statutes does not itself relieve a Federal
agency of its obligation to comply with the consultation procedures.

I would like to close by saying that Region 4, Fish and Wildlife Service
has recently initiated Area Offices.  These Area Offices are responsible
for all fish and wildlife activities in their areas including the
Initial steps of consultation.  There are three area offices located at:

          Jacksonville, Florida - Don Hankla,  Area  Manager
          Asheville, N. C. - William Hickling, Area Manager
          Jackson, Mississippi - Russell Earnest, Area Manager

I have a handout available that has the addresses and the telephone
numbers of these offices and the states for which they are responsible.

-------
Mr. Donald 0. Hankla, Area Manager
U. S. F1sh and Wildlife Service
900 San Marco Boulevard
Jacksonsvllle, Florida  32207
FTS  946-2267      Comm.  904/791-2267
Georgia, Florida, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, & U S Virgin Islands
Mr. William C. Hickling, Area Manager
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Room 279
Ashevllle, North Carolina   28801
FTS  672-0321      Comm.  704/258-2850, ext. 321
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, & Kentucky
Mr. Russell D. Earnest, Area Manager
U. S.  F1sh and Wildlife Service
200 East Pascagoula Street, Suite 490
Jackson, Mississippi   39201
FTS  490-4900      Comm.   601/969-4900
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, & Mississippi

-------
                     The Question of Prime Farmland
                                 John M.  Salley

Land is a resource American society has historically taken for granted.  Like

air and water it was thought to be plentiful.  However, unlike air and water,

awareness of its fragility and finite nature has been slow in coming.  Demands

on our land resource have been steadily increasing since this nation was first

colonized.  During the period 1950 to 1970 urban lands acquired 13.5 million

rural acres to accommodate its expanding population and supporting structure.

Accelerated loss of rural land, including cropland, has caused great national

concern.


Concern at the national level has been voiced for the ability of the United

States to maintain or even to increase its production of food and fiber.

National concern has also been voiced for environmental values associated

with land as a component of all our  life systems.  At state and local levels,

the location as well as the amount and quality of farmland are important to

state economic strength.  Concern at this level is also focused on the support

systems for farmland in addition to  land value for compatible uses such as

open space, water supply, wildlife habitat,  recreation, and waste recycling.


Therefore, identification of prime and other types of farmland is important

in that it serves interests at all levels.   It serves as a "yardstick" of our

national capacity for agricultural production.  And it provides a way of

assessing the incremental losses of  productive land to urban and other develop-

ment.

-------
                                  - 2 -



In 1974, USDA began a concentrated effort to stud/ the prime farmland ques-



tions rising out of land use controversy.  A national seminar on prime lands



was held in 1975.  Among other things, the seminar encouraged USDA to:



          1.  Develop a clear policy on the issue;



          2.  Begin immediately to define, inventory, and monitor land



              use trends involving prime lands;



          3.  Develop with CEQ procedures to give attention to prime



              farmland in the preparation and review of environmental



              impact statements; and,



          4.  Be an advocate of prime farmland retention and protection



              from premature or unwise conversion.





The Soil Conservation Service began inventory of important farmlands in 1975.



Several types of land and land uses were and are being inventoried.  Those



categories are prime farmland, unique farmland,  additional farmland of state-



wide importance, other farmland of local importance, urban builtup areas larger



than 10 acres, water areas larger than 10 acres, and other land.  The initial



survey showed that there is an annual loss of about one million acres of prime



farmland and another one million acres of lower quality land also capable of



producing food and fiber.  That amounts to over 5000 acres of farmland removed



from production every day.  But how are prime and unique farmlands defined?





     Prime farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage,



fiber, and oilseed crops, and also available for these uses.  It has the



soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained



high yields of crops economically when treated and managed according to modern



farming methods.  Qualitative criteria for identifying prime farmland are



given in SCS Land Inventory and Monitoring Memorandum-3 (CFR Part 657, attached)

-------
                                  - 3 -



     Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the



production of specific high value food and fiber crops.  It has the special



combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply



needed to produce sustained, high quality and/or high yields of a specific



crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods.  Examples



of these special crops include citrus, olives, cranberries, and tart cherries.





     Additional farmland of statewide importance is land, in addition to



prime and unique farmlands, that is valuable for production of food, feed,



fiber, forage, and oilseed crops.  Criteria for defining and delineating



this land are determined by appropriate state agencies.  These lands are



being defined according to specific, named kinds of soil that nearly qualify



as prime farmland.





     Approximately 1,200 counties in the United States have been selected as



having the most urgent need for the important farmlands inventory.  These are



counties with significant acreage of prime farmland and are currently under



urbanization pressure or pressure for other land use changes.  The anticipated



date for completion of these 1,200 county inventories is 1981.  The nationwise



inventory is expected to be completed by 1986.





     After prime and other types of farmland have been identified it is up to



local government to declare which lands are to be protected from development.



USDA firmly believes that such designation of lands is a public policy process



that should occur at state and local levels.  Because of this we do not expect



uniformity of rules and regulations.  Many states have established mechanisms



for regulating farmland loss which vary from state to state; all are practical.

-------
                                   - 4 -



     At the federal level, the impact of prime farmland conversions on envir-



onmental quality has been recognized.  The Council on Environmental Quality



has notified all federal agencies that environmental impact statements should



evaluate and weigh the effect of proposed projects on prime and unique farm-



lands.  Where developments are planned and/or funded agencies must now consider



the additional factor of soil resource.  This additional factor in the planning



"mix" is a reflection of concern for our ability to support efficient, stable



agriculture and other values for years to come.





     Prime farmland retention as a national agricultural policy interacts with



other national policies.  Farming uses a small, but important, amount of our



total energy.  Therefore, constant or diminishing allocation of energy to agri-



culture adds importance to the need for prime farmland retention because prime



lands are more energy efficient than lands of lesser quality.  If more land of



lesser value must be devoted to agriculture to compensate for lost prime farm-



land production there will be greater energy expenditure and greater possibi-



lity of environmental damage.  A national growth policy which ignores the



necessity for farmland retention will accelerate prime farmland loss.  However,



we realize that retention of all farmland could cause dislocation of some



needed non-farm land uses.  This is why we feel that with good resource infor-



mation and citizen participation rational and environmentally-compatible land



use decisions can be made-

-------
4030

approval for operations and other wa-
tershrojects selected  for deauthoiiza-
tlon  by  the  State   Conservationist
where it Is unlikely that planned mea-
sures will be Installed. The deauthori-
zation of funding will remove the pro-
jects  from consideration  for funds,
staff assistance, and other resource de-
mands.  The released resources will be
available for  concentration  on  high.
priority  projects  which  can  be  In-
stalled in a more efficient way.
DATES: Effective  date: February 7,
1978.,
FOR   FURTHER  INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  J. W.  Mitchell, Director, Watersheds.
  Division, Soil Conservation Service,
  UJ5.  Department  of  Agriculture,
  P.O.  Box 2890.  Washington,  D.C,
  20013. 202-447-3527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On Tuesday.  December 6,  1977. the
Sod Conservation  Service  published
proposed ruletnaking  permitting ad-
ministrative  actions   to  deauthorlze
watershed projects.
DISCUSSION  OF  MAJOR  COM-
MENTS: There was only one comment
received. The  respondent  was  con-
cerned  about  the  deauthorization of
watershed  projects  included  in  an
overall  plan with  downstream works
by the  Corps  of Engineers where the
timing  of  construction for  Corps of
Engineers  projects had not kept  UP
with  those of the watershed projects.
The respondent would be satisfied If
the proposal would permit the delay-
Ing of  watershed  construction  starts
beyond the eight (8)  years for coordi-
nation  with Corps of Engineers pro-
jects. Section  622.55(a) states in  part.
"If.'- after  agreement with  sponsors.
the State  Conservationist determines
It unlikely that planned measures will
be  installed, he  will  initiate project
deauthorization action, as provided In
paragraph (b) of  this section. State
Conservationists  may elect  to  begin
deauthorization sooner where it Is un-
likely that planned measures will be
installed and  sponnors concur in the
deauthorl'/atlon."  The determination
to deauthorlze is  keyed to a decision
that planned measures will not be in-
Stalled.  The delaying of a construction
start beyond the eight (8) years Is per-
mitted  if  there  are  adequate assur-
ances that the planned measure will
be Installed. Therefore, section 622.55
is published as  final rules as follows:
Section  822.55— Deauthorization  of
projects
  (a)  By February 1, each  calendar
year,  the State Conservationist  shall
examine watershed projects for which
he Is responsible In which no structur-
al measures have  been Installed for
eight (8) years after  approval for  In-
stallation of  works of improvement
     RULES AND REGULATIONS

(See section 822.40). If,  after agree-
ment with sponsors, the State Conser-
vationist determines it unlikely that
planned measures will be  installed, he
will  initiate project deauthorization
action, as provided In subsection (b) of
this  section.  State  Conservationists
may elect  to  begin deauthorization
sooner  where  it  is unlikely  that
planned measures will be Installed and
sponsors concur in the  deauthoriza-
tion.
  (b> The.  8Ut« CwiwmUonisS  wlX*
notify  the Administrator of the  Boll
Conservation  Bervlce  and  concerned
State and  otliay Rgeneias, %htcte  .had.
been, notified that the project wa« ap-
proved for inatalloMon of  wflrks.of 1m,
provementa, of the proposed deauthor-
ization.  The   environmental  eonae-
q^ences of deauthorizatloQ will be do-
cumented by an appropriate Environ-
mental Assessment  and other steps, as
required by SCS procedure <7  CFR
650). If authorization for funding by
the Administrator Of the  Soil Conser-
vation  Service is subject  to approval
by resolution  by a  committee of Con-
gress, the appropriate committee will
be given  written notice  of the  pro-
posed deauthorlzatlon sixty (60) days
before  final deauthorization action la
taken.  Project* approved administra-
tively wfll be deauthorized by State
Conservationists after notification of
the Administrator of the  Soil Conser-
vation  Service,  Notice  of all project
deauthoi iaation will be published in
the FEDERAL  REGISTER by  the State
Conservationist. The State Conserva-
tionist will notify  sponsors and  con-
cerned Federal.  State, and local agen-
cies  of  final  action. Deauthorization
proceedings may be canceled by the
State  Conservationist  based  upon
public,   Congressional,   or   sponsor
action at any time before  the notice Is
published.
(Catalog of  Federal  Domestic Assistance
Program No. 10.904. Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention  Program—Pub. L, 83-
566, 18 U.S.C. (1001^1008).)
  Dated: January 24, 1978
                     R. M. DAVIS.
    Administrator,   Soil  Conserva-
     tion  Service,  U.S. Department
     of Agriculture.
  [FR Doc. 78 2693 Filed 1-30-78; 845 am]

[3410-16]

     suscHAm* F—SUFPO«T ACTIVITIES

 PART «7—PRIM! AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS

  Subparl A—Impwiant Farmlands Inventory

AGENCY: U.S.  Department of Agri-
culture.  Soil   Conservation  Service
(SCS).

ACTIQN: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule prescribes gen-
eral guidelines for a national program
.of  Inventorying  prime  and  unique
farmland, as well as other farmlands
of statewide or  local importance. It
Incl specific criteria for the definition
of prime farmland. This rule is neces-
sary because the Nation needs to know
the extent  and  location of the best
land  for producing food, feed, fiber,
forage, and oilseed crops.  '
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31. 1978,
FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  R. I, piderikoen, Director. Inventory
  and Monitoring Division, Soil Con-
  servation  Secvioe, U.S. Department
  of Agriculture, PO. Box 2aw>, Wash-
  ington.  D.C. apo,i?, telephone 203-
  447-4424.

BVPPLErMENTARY INFORMATION:
On August 23. 1977. the Soil Conserva-
tion Service published In the FEDERAL
REGISTER (42 FR 42356) proposed rules
for the conduct of its Important Farm-
lands .Inventory.  During the 30-day
commenting period. Id letters were re-
ceived from 4 Federal agencies. 5 State
and Commonwealth agencies. 6 private
firms associated with coal production.
and 1 State Chamber pf Commerce.
  All written comments  were given
consideration In developing the final
rule.
  The fuli  text  Of all comments  re
eelved Is on file and  available   for
public  Inspection  In:  Room  5214,
South Agriculture Building. Inventory
and Monitoring Division, Soil Conser-
vation Service, U.S. Department of Ag
rlculture. Washington. D.C. 20013.

   DISCUSSION or MAJOR COMMENTS

    DEFINITION Or PRIME FARMLAND

  One agency asked that SCS change
the prime farmland  definition  to  in
elude land that would qualify as primt
farmland alter  irrigation is provided
SCS  haa determined that this would
change  the lnt«nt of the Inventory
The  prime  farmland  definition   in
eludes areas that currently are Irn
gated or have proper drainage to pro
vide  the  necessary water  regime  tc
meet the criteria. The Inventory Is U
be kept current, as stated In § 657.2.
  A  Federal agency  asked that SCfc
add    the    following    words    U
}657.5(a)(2)(vl)  "or are flooded  onh
under controlled conditions for irrigat
ed farming." SCS has determined tha
the  criteria for  Irrigation  are  ad<-
quately covered  in 5857.5(a)(2Ki>. Irn
gallon, regardless of the  type used, i
not  commonly  perceived  as  floodin,
and  the  statements should be clearl
understood.
  Another  commenter proposed tha
the entire frigid  temperature regim
Include some soils too cold for norma
farming practices. SCS recognizes thi
problem, but Is  aware also that ther
are soils within the frigid temperatur
                             FUMRAl MOtSTM. VOL. 43, NO. 31—TUtSDAY, JAMUAMV 31,

-------
to be Included In the prime farmland
definition. Many of the soils that are
too cold for normal farming practices
also have  other  feat ares  that  will
eliminate them from  the  prime farm-
land  classification.  Based   on  data
available at this time the  entire frigid
temperature regime la  Included, pro-
vlded all the other criteria are satis-
fled.
  A private Industry  commenter SUK-
geaU that  an additional  criterion' be
added to require that prime farmland
•olla hure an A horizon with an accu-
mulation of humified organic  matter
of not less  than 0.8 percent associated
with the mineral fraction. SCS agrees
that organic matter content  is a very
Important criterion for explaining the
behavior of soils. However.  SCS does
not agree that an organic matter crite-
rion ia  needed in  the  rules. Adding
juch  a  requirement would  disqualify
thousands  or acres of highly produc-
tive Irrigated soils  that have low or-
ganic  matter  content.  These  are
among the  most productive soils of the
Nation when treated with acceptable
management techniques. .
  Another  coromenter  suggests  that
the permeability rate be changed from
008 Inch to 0,2 inch per hour hi all
soil  horizons. '  SCS  does not agree.
Such a change would delete millions
of acres of highly productive soils In
 the Mississippi  Delta and other areas
of  the  Western  and  Southeastern
 United States. Such soils require care-
 ful management techniques. However.
 ihehe soils are some  of the Nation'*
motl productive lands.
  A private company suggests that the
 criteria in § 657.5(a)(2)(l) be expanded
 to  include  the concept of  cultivated
 crops adapted  to  the region and to_
 define both cultivated crops and root"
 wnes. SCS agrees and has added the
 definitions  as requested.
  Several  people  expressed concern
 that the proposed definition of prime
 farmland was too  rigid  for  Individual
 States that might want  to modify  cer-
 tain parameters to adequately reflect
 prime fannland. SCS agrees arid  has
 chanced §657.4(a)(2) to allow flexibil-
 ity In Application of the permeability
 criterion or permit the restricting of
 oilier specific criteria to  assure that
 the most  accurate  Identification  of
 prime farmlands  Is  made  for each
 SiAte. The national criteria will  not
 mange,  but this  flexibility  permits
 SUU; Conservationists, In cooperation
 *tth others, to Identify soil mapping
 t^nll* that  Include a  portion of both
 Prime and nonprlme farmlands or that
 tuve chemical and physical properties
 uui! cannot be determined accurately
 TmKh to  clearly place the soil In or
 •' >'• of the criteria.

        CONCKHN FOR WJSTLANDS

   A  Federal agency  was concerned
      Hie definition of prime farmlands
intend that  the definition  of  prime
farmland include areas that currently
qualify as wetlands. They are elimi-
nated from the criteria on the basts of
5657.5(a)(2Xlv).

     CATEGORIES OF THE INVENTORY

  Several private industry comment*™
objected  to  the inclusion  of unique
farmlands, farmlands of statewide im-
portance, and  farmlands of local  Im-
portance  in the Inventory, arguing
that they extend the  Intent of Con-
greas as  expressed  in  Pub.  L. 95-87
which spealta ouly to th« term prime
farmland aa jt relate*  to  the surface
mining of coaL They argue  the  pro-
posed  definition  doe* not conform to
the definition *et forth on page S8101
of the Congressional Record for  May
20. 1977. SCS ha* determined that the
specific definition for prime farmlands
contained In ! 857J(a) is .exactly  the
same as  that which appeaj-ed on page
S8101  of the Congressional Record for
May 20.  1977. In all technical aspects.
Minor ohanjfes were made  from  the
wording  In order to remove procedural
guidelines and  other sentences  that
did not relate specifically to scientific
criteria lor prime taitalaad. 6CS rules
(7 CPR Part 657). are not intended to
be utilized only for the purposes of im-
plementing  Pub.  L. 9&-87.  It  estab-
lishes  an Important farroiand  Inven-
tory that covers four categories of im-
portant farmland*. Only one category.
prime  farmland, has  applicability to
the implementation of Pub, L, 1)5-87.

         INVENTORY MAP SCALE

  A  Federal agency encourage*  the
overall  use  of  l:100.000-scale   base
maps  to provide  uniformity among
county map* and to assist in making
comparisons among the national farm-
lands inventory and the national  wet-
lands inventory. SCS concurs with the
goal of keeping all  maps to  a, consis-
tent   map   accuracy  and   utilizing
common  scales   wherever   possible.
However, in  some counties with com-
plex patterns, larger maps are needed.
In  those area*  or where other  de-
mands dictate. State Conservationists
may utilize  base maps of other scales.

        INVENTORY PROCEDURES

  A State agency suggests that provi-
sions should be made for addition or
deletion  of  lands  whose status  has
changed in regard to the prime farm-
land criteria. SCS will  keep these in-
ventories current and acreage will be
deleted when it fails to meet the crite-
ria for prime farmland.
  A public service  agency asked  that
SCS not  proceed with the Identifica-
tion of Important farmland until their
State had the opportunity to test and
modify definitions and ultimately paa<»
State legislation to define the agrlcul-
SCU has determined that tne «y»tem
as proposed  allow*  State* to develop
statewide definition* either by legisla-
tion or other  policy.  Definition*  tot
unique    farmland.   farmland   of
statewide Importance, and additional
farmland of  local importance are In-
tentionally left broad enough to be de-
fined  appropriately *t  cacti' State
level. The definition of  prime farm-
land must be uniformly applied in ajl
States to provide *. b*ai* tor nation*!
policy actions,
  In accordance with thece determina-
tion*, 7 CFR Part 867 U  pubURtUKl A*
/trial
(Catalog of Aderal, DOHw*tic
prottmm* numbered lti.900 (Orwtt Flaw*),
10.901 4Re*ouroo Co aberration and Dewlop-
menu; JO.eoa-CSoU wad Watar Cao*erT»-
Uoa>. 10.604 (Wktenhed Protection and
Flood Prevention), sad lOWtt cPlMU M*t«-
  Dated: January 23.
                   B. M. DAVIS,
                   Adm.inittra.tOT,
           Soil Cotuervation Service.
S«c.
897.1  Purpose.
657.3  Policy.
857.3  Applicability,
667.4  SCS RespoiutbilltlM.
667.B  Identification  of  important  Una-
   land*
  AUTHORITY:  18 U.S.C. 5»0a-f. «;  7 CPK
2.62: Pub. L. 00-47; 42 VAC. 4321 et *eq.

                               rtory
9 6S7.1  PurpoM.
  SCS Is concerned about any action
that tends to impair the productive ca-
pacity of American  agriculture.  The
Nation needs  to know the extent and
location of the best land for producing
food, feed,  fiber,  forage, and oilseed
crops. In addition to prime and unique
farmlands,  farmlands   that   are  of
statewide and local Importance  for
producing these crop* also need to  be
Identified.

5 «57.2  Policy.
  It  Is SCS policy  to make and keep
current  an Inventory  of the  prime
farmland and  unique farmland of the
Nation. This Inventory is to be carried
out In cooperation with other interest-
ed agencies  at the national. State, and
local levels  of government. The objec-
tive of the inventory Is to idenUfy the
extent and location of important rural
lands needed  to produce food. feed.
fiber, forage. and oilseed crops.

8 f»67.S  Applicability.
  Inventories  made under this memo-
rajidurc  do  not constitute  a  designa-
tion of any  land area to a specific land
ut>e Such designation* are the respon-
Blbimy Oif Appropriate local and State
OJt.CltaLS..
                             FEDERAL ftMISTflL VOi. «, MO. Jl—TUESOAT. JAMJMY 3t

-------
 4032
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
 1657.4  8CS ReiponaibilitieB.
   la) State Conservationist. Each SCS
 State Conservationist Is to:
   (1)  Provide leadership for  Inven-
 tories of important farmlands for the
 State, county, or other subdivision  of
 the State. Each is to work with appro-
 priate  agencies  of  State  government
 and others to establish priorities for
 making these Inventories.
'  (2) Identify the soil mapping units
 within the State that qualify as prime.
 In doing this. State Conservationists,
1 In consultation  with the  cooperators
 of  the  National  Cooperative  Soil
 Survey, have the flexibility  to make
 local deviation from the permeability
 criterion or to be more restrictive for
 other  specific  criteria In  order  to
'assure the most accurate Identification
 of prime farmlands for a State. Each Is
 to invite representatives of the  Gover-
 nor's office, agencies of the State gov-
 ernment, and others to Identify farm-
 lands of  statewide  importance and
 unique farmlands that  are to be inven-
 toried  within the framework of this
 memorandum.
   (3) Prepare  a statewide list of:
   (1) Soil mapping units that meet the
 criteria for prime farmland;
   (11)  Soil mapping  units  that are
 farmlands of  statewide Importance  If
 the criteria used were based on soil
 information; and
   (ill) Specific  high-value food and
 fiber crops that  are  grown and, when
 combined with other favorable factors,
 qualify lands  to  meet the criteria for
 unique  farmlands. Copies are  to be
 furnished to SCS Field Offices  and  to
 SCS   Technical   Service   Centers
 (TSC's). (Ste 1 CFR 600.3. 600.6.)
   (4) Coordinate soil  mapping  units
 that qualify as prime farmlands with
 adjacent States,  including the  States
 responsible for the  soil series.  Since
 farmlands  of statewide  importance
 and unique farmlands  are designated
 by others at  the State level, the soil
 mapping units  and  areas identified
 need not be coordinated among States.
  (5) Instruct SCS District Conserva-
 tionists  to arrange  local  review  of
 lands identified as prime, unique, and
 additional rannluu<_u of statewide Im-
 portance  by  Conservation  Districts
 and representatives of local  agencies.
This review is  to determine if addition-
al farmland should  be identified  lo
meet local declslonmakmg needs.
  (6) Make and  publish each Impor-
tant  farmland Inventory  on a base
map of national  map accuracy at an
Intermediate  scale  of  1:50.000  or
 1:100.000. State Conservationists who
need base  maps of other scales  are to
submit  their  requests  with  justifica-
tion to the Administrator for consider-
ation.
  Cb) Technical Service Center*.  Field
representatives are to provide request-
ed technical assistance to  State Con-
servationists  in   inventorying  prime
 and  unique farmlands (see 7  CFR
 600.2).    This   Includes    reviewing
 statewide lists of soil  mapping  units
 that meet the criteria for prime farm-
 lands and resolving coordination  prob-
 lems that may occur among States for
 specific  soil series  or  soil mapping
 units.
  (c) National  Office.  The  Assistant
 Administrator for Field Services (see 7
 CFR 600.2) Is to provide national lead-
 ership In preparing guidelines for in-
 ventorying  prime farmlands and  for
 national statistics and reports of prime
 farmlands.

 9667.5 Identification  of important  farm-
 .  land*.
  (a) Prime farmlands—<1) General.
 Prime farmland  la land that has the
 beat  combination  of   physical  and
 chemical characteristics for producing
 food, feed,  forage,  fiber, and oilseed
 crops, and  Is also available  for these'
 uses (the land could be  cropland, pas-
 tureland, rangeland,  forest land,  or
 other  land, but  not urban built-up
 land or water). It has the soil quality,
 growing  season,  and moisture supply
 needed to economically produce sus-
 tained high yields of crops when treat-
 ed and managed. Including water man-
 agement,  according  to  acceptable
 fanning  methods. In general,  prime
 farmlands have an  adequate and  de-
 pendable water supply from  precipita-
 tion or irrigation, a favorable tempera-
 ture  and growing season, acceptable
 acidity  or alkalinity,  acceptable  salt
 and sodium content,  and few or no
 rocks. They are permeable  to  water
 and air.  Prime farmlands are not  ex-
 cessively  credible or  saturated  with
 water for a long  period of time, and
 they either  do not flood frequently or
 are protected from flooding. Examples
 of soils that qualify as prime farmland
 are Palouae  silt loam, 0 to 7 percent
 slopes;  Brookston  silty clay  loam,
 drained; and Taraa 81!Ly clay loam, 0 to
 5 percent slopes.
  (2)  Specific  criteria.  Prime  farm-
 lands meet  all the  following criteria:
 Terms used In this section are defined
 In USDA publications:  "Soil Taxon-
 omy,  Agriculture  Handbook  436":
 "Soil  Survey   Manual,  Agriculture
 Handbook   18";   "Rainfall-erosion
 Losses  From  Cropland. Agriculture
 Handbook 282"; "Wind Erosion Forces
 In the United States and Their Use in
 Predicting   Soil  Loss,  Agriculture
 Handbook  346";  and  "Saline   and
 Alkali Soils, Agriculture  Handbook
 60."
  (1) The soils have:
  (A) Aqulc.  udlc,  ustic, or xerlc mols-.
 turc regimes and sufficient  available
 water capacity within a depth  of 40
 Inches (1  meter), or In the root  zone
(root zone Is the part of the soil that Is
 penetrated or  can be penetrated  by
plant roots) If the  root zone  Is  less
than 40  Inches deep, to produce the
commonly grown cultivated crop* (cul-
tivated crops  include,  but are  not
limited to, grain, forage, fiber, oilseed,
sugar beets, sugarcane, vegetables, to-
bacco,  orchard,  vineyard,  and bush
fruit crops) adapted to the region  In. 7
or more years out of 10; or
  (B) Xerlc or ustlc moisture regimes
in which  the available water capacity
is limited, but the area  has a devel-
oped irrigation water supply that is
dependable  (a   dependable   water
supply is one In which enough water la
available for Irrigation In 8 out of 10
years for the crops commonly  crown)
and of adequate quality; or,
  (C) Arldlo or tonii: moisture regimes
and the area has a developed irriga-
tion water supply that Is dependable
and Of adequate quality; and.
  (11) The soils  have a  temperature
regime  that is frigid,  mesic, thermic.
or hyperthermlc (pergellc and crylc re-
gimes are excluded).  These are soils
that, at a depth of 20 Inches (50 cm).
have a  mean annual  temperature
higher than 32* F (0'  C). In addition.
the mean summer temperature at  this
depth in  soils  with an  O  horizon is
higher than.47* F (8*  C); in soils that
have no Q horizon, the mean summer
temperature ia higher than 69' F (15*
C); and,
  (111) The solte have a pH between 4.5
and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth
of 40 inches (1 meter) or In the root
zone If the root  zone is  less than 40
inches deep: and,
  (iv) The soils either have no water
table or bave  a water table that is
maintained at  a   sufficient   depth
during  the cropping season to allow
cultivated crops common to the area
to be grown: and,
  (v) The soils can be managed so that,
in all horizons within a  depth of 40
inches (1 meter) or in the root zone if
the  root zone  is less  than 40  Inches
deep, during part of each year the con-
ductivity of the saturation extract is
less  than 4 mmhos/cm and the  ex-
changable sodium percentage (ESP) is
less than 15; and,
  (vl) The soils are not  flooded  fre
quently during the  growing  season
(less often than once In 2 years): and.
  (vli) The product  of K (credibility
factor) x percent slope Is less than 2.0.
and  the product of I (soils credibility)
x C (climatic factor) does not exceed
60; and
  (vlli) The soils  have a permeability
rate of at least 0.06 Inch (0.15 cm) per
hour In the upper 20  inches (50 cm)
and the mean annual soil  temperature
at a depth of 20 Inches (50 cm) Is less
than 59* F (15' C);  the permeability
rate is  not a  limiting factor  if  the
mean annual soil  temperature is 59* F
(15' C) or higher, and.
  (ix) Less than 10 percent of the sur-
face layer  (upper 6  Inches) in  these
soils consists of rock fragments coarser
than 3 inches (7.6 cm).
                             fEDERAL IKMSm. VOL. 43, NO. 2WTUCSDAV, JANUAIY 31, !«?•

-------
                                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                     4033
  tt» UniQue farmland—<1) General
 Unique farmland la land other  than
 prime farmland  that Is used for the
 production of specific high value food
 and fiber crops. It has the special com-
 bination of soil quality, location, grow-
 ing   season,  and  moisture  supply
 needed to economically produce sus-
 tained high quality and/or high yields
 of  a specific crop when treated and
 managed  according  to  acceptable
 fanning methods.  Examples of  sxich
 crops are citrus, tree nuts, olives, cran-
 berries, fruit, and vegetables.
  (2)   Specific   Characteristics   of
 unique farmland. (1) Is  used for a spe-
 cific high-value food or fiber crop; 
-------
                  Revisions to the  Clean AirAct
                        Randy Mayfield
INTRODUCTION
     With the signing of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments on August 7,
1977, by President Carter, many new tasks have been placed upon the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States.  One of the
most pressing of these tasks is the requirement of Section 107(d) of
the revised Act that EPA publish by February 3, 1978, a list of air
quality control regions (AQCRs), or portions thereof, reflecting their
attainment/non-attainment status for all criteria pollutants.  The
categories specified by the new Act are as follows:
     (1) Areas violating national primary standards
     (2) Areas violating national secondary standards (but not primary)
     (3) Areas attaining standards
     (4) Areas which cannot be classified on the basis of available data.
     There are a number of implications of designating an area as attainment,
non-attainment, or unclassified.  For any pollutant, the designation of
"non-attainment area" will require that a State implementation plan (SIP)
revision be developed for that area by January 1, 1979.  During this interim
period the present EPA non-attainment policy regarding emission offsets
(Interpretative Ruling, 41 Federal Register 55524-30, December 21, 1976)
will be applied in the non-attainment areas.  If an acceptable SIP is not
developed, severe sanctions are provided:  withholding of control agency
grants, termination of certain other Federal funds, and a prohibition on
construction of new major facilities.

-------
     For participate matter or S02» where an area is unclassified or is
designated as attainment, any major new or modified sources considering
construction will face a review to ensure that they do not cause significant
deterioration of air quality (i.e., prevention of significant air quality
deterioration or PSD).  In addition, it may be necessary to expand the PSD
review to consider the impact of sources in non-attainment areas on adjacent
clean-air areas.  New plans to implement PSD requirements for particulate
matter and S02 will be due from the States in early 1979.  Until State
plans are developed, the current PSD requirements (40 CFR 52.21) will remain
in effect except for certain new provisions in the amended Act which modify
these regulations effective immediately.  These new provisions are those
relating to air quality increments and ceilings, mandatory Class I areas,
and State designation procedures for other than mandatory Class I areas.
     For hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides, where an area is designated as attainment or unclassified, only
best available control technology (BACT) under PSD will  be required until
EPA promulgates a "definition" of significant deterioration for these
pollutants.
     The Act requires that States submit designations to EPA by December 5,
1977.  EPA must then promulgate the lists in the Federal Register by
February 3, 1978, with any modifications as necessary.  When any modification
to the list is proposed by the Administrator, the affected State will be
notified and provided an opportunity to demonstrate why the proposed modificatio
is inappropriate.  EPA will compile all State lists with all modifications
as may be necessary and publish them as required by the Act.

-------
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
     The amendments explicitly require plan revisions to prevent significant
deterioration of areas cleaner than required by federal ambient air quality
standards.  It establishes three land classifications that are tied to
specific allowable increases in particulate matter and sulfur dioxide over
the baseline concentrations.
     Class I increments are set to protect pristine areas, Class II to
allow moderate development, and Class III to permit more extensive growth.
The statute prescribes the following specific increments:

                                    Maximum Allowable Increase (ug/m3)


Class I
Class II
Class III

AGM
5
19
37
TSP
24-Hour
10
37
75

AAM
2
20
40
S02
24-Hour
5
91
182

3-Hour
25
512
700
         AGM = Annual geometric mean
         AAM = Annual arithmetic mean
     No increments are set for pollutants other than particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide.  However, EPA is directed to propose regulations within two
years for increments or other means to prevent significant air quality
deterioration from nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
photochemical oxidants.
     Most land areas are designated Class II and are available to the State
for redesignation to Class I or III after following prescribed procedures.
A State must consult with the federal  land manager in redesignating federal
lands, but does not need his concurrence.  However, the law establishes as
mandatory Class I areas all international parks, national wilderness areas,
and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres, national parks over 6,000

-------
acres in existence upon enactment and any Class I  area established through
EPA redesignation procedures before enactment.   The mandatory Class I areas
in Florida are the Everglades National  Park and the Bradwell  Bay, Saint Marks,
and Okefenokee National Wilderness areas.
     The federal land manager must review the air  quality related values of
national monuments, primitive areas, national preserves and recreation areas.
Where appropriate, and after consultation with the State, he is to recommend
redesignation to Class I within one year.
     A number of areas over 10,000 acres are ineligible for designation to
Class III.  These are national monuments, national primitive areas, national
preserves, national wild and scenic rivers, national wildlife refuges, national
seashores, new national parks, new national wilderness areas, and other new
areas in these categories created after enactment.
     Twenty-eight (28) categories of major stationary sources with the
potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of any air pollutant are
subject to the rules.  Also included are sources with the potential to
emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant.
VISIBILITY PROTECTION
     The thrust of the PSD provision is to protect clear air areas from
emissions from new and expanding plants.  A critical provision introduced
in the amendments targets the problem of impaired  visibility in pristine
areas caused by new and existing sources.
     The amendments require the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with federal land managers, to identify within six months mandatory Class I
areas where visibility is an important value needing protection.  EPA,

-------
after consultation with the Secretary, has one year to promulgate the list.
The State then must impose best available retrofit technology on major
stationary sources which contribute to the visibility problem.  Retrofiting
requirements apply to the 28 major sources identified in the PSD provision,
but only to those sources with the potential to emit 250 tons per year or
more of any pollutant.
     The State has considerable authority in determining best available
retrofit technology.  Federal guidelines are limited to fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plants with a total generating capacity over 750 megawatts,

-------
                  THE INTERAGENCy MCHEOLOGICAL PROGRAM
                                       Mr. Benny Keel


In 1945, at the end of World II, Congress began appropriating funds for
the construction of a system of multipurpose dams in river basins through-
out the United States.  American archeologists realized that construction
activities, particularly the resultant reservoir impoundments, would
obliterate untold cultural resources unless surveys and excavations were
started immediately.  An advisory group known as the Committee for the
Recovery of Archeoloegical Remains, representing the community of scientists
concerned, was formed to counsel Federal agencies participating in these
water resource development programs.  Thus the Interagency Archeological
Salvage Program was launched, the original participants being the National
Park Service, the Smithsonian Institution, the Bureau of Reclamation, and
the Corps of Engineers.

From the beginning the National Park Service was the coordinating agency
of the Interagency Archeological Salvage Program.  As time passed, the
Service drew upon personnel, facilities, and resources of more than 50
universities, colleges and museums, as well as the Smithsonian Institution,
in pursuing archeological salvage operations in many water control projects,
Park Service participating in this program was based on the Antiquities
Act of 1906 (Public Law 59-209) and the Histoic Sites Act of 1935 (Public
Law 74-292).  The Antiquities Act gave the Secretary of the Interior
responsibility for protecting prehistoric and historic ruins, monuments,
and objects situated on most Federal lands.  The Secretary has delegated
this responsibilty to the Director of the National Park Service.

In the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Congress declared that "It is a national
policy to preserve to public use historic sites, buildings and objects of
national significance...." The act empowers "the Secretary of the Interior
through the National Park Service" to carry out this policy and authorizes
the Service to conduct surveys, publish studies, and otherwise encourage
the preservation of historic properties not federally owned.

Later, the Reservoir Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-523) gave the Department
of the Interior, and through it the National Park Service, major respon-
sibility for the preservation of archeological data that might be lost
specifically through dam construction.  To preserve or recover as much as
possible of the Nation's prehistoric and historic heritage that would be
destroyed by Federal actions, the Archeological and Historic Preservation
Act (Public Law 93-291) was signed into law by the President in 1974.  The
new law amends the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 and places responsibility
upon the Secretary of the Interior for coordinating and administering a
nationwide program for the recovery, protection, and preservation of
scientific, prehistoric, and historic data which otherwise would be damaged

-------
                                 -2-
or destroyed as a result of Federal or federally related land modifica-
tion activities.  Such activities include, in addition to the dam con-
struction cited in the Reservoir Salvage Act, pipeline and sewer con-
struction, power transmission facility development, airport construction,
and so forth.

Further measures have also been taken to preserve our cultural heritage.
Responsibilties of the Secretaiy of the Interior were increased by the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which pledged Federal assis-
tance to preservation efforts undertaken by State and local governments
and by the private sector.  The Act expanded the National Register of
Historic Places and established the Advisory Council on Historic Pre-
servation to advise the President and Congress on programs calculated
to enhance the Nation's efforts in historic preservation.  In addition,
the Advisory Council is given the opportunity to comment on the effect
that Federal undertakings might have on National Register properties.

On January 1, 1970, the Congress passed the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190).  Its principal purpose was establish a
national policy regarding the environment  and to provide for the establish-
ment of a Council on Environmental Quality.  Title 1, Section 10(b) states,
"In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the con-
tinuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable
means, consistent with other considerations of national policy to improve
and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the
end that the Nation may... preserve important historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national heritage..." Federal agencies were further
directed by Title 1, Section 102(2)(c) to prepare environmental impact
statements for each major Federal action having an effect on the environment,

As a complement to the National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order
11593 was issued in May 1971.  Among other things it requires the Secretary
of the Interior to advise other Federal agencies in matters pertaining to
the identification and evaluation of historic propoties located on lands
under their jurisdicitions.  Moreover, the Secretary is charged with
developing and diseminiating to Federal, State, and local government
units information concerning methods and techniques for preservation,
restoration, and maintenance of historic properties.

Operating from officers in Washington, B.C., Atlanta, Denver, and San
Francisco, the Interagency Archeological Service Division today includes
the following programs:

-------
                                  -3-


THE ARCHEOLOGICAL  INVESTIGATIONS  PROGRAM

Through this program  contracts and cooperative agreements are entered
into with Federal  and State agencies and with qualified scientific and
educational institutions for  the  purpose of implementing data recovery
investigations.  It monitors  and  coordinates all archeological efforts
relating to Federal and federally licensed or assited construction pro-
jects and reports  on  them annually to the Congress.  The program is
funded by annual appropriations and through the transfer of funds from
Federal agencies whose activities come under the purview of the Archeo-
logical and Historic  Preservation Act of 1974.

THE ANTIQUITIES ACT PROGRAM

National Park Service responsibilities under the Antiquities Act of
1906 have been redelegated to the Department Consulting Archeologist,
who grants permits for archeological (and paleontological) explora-
tions on most federally owned or controlled lands.  He reviews appli-
cations, coordinates them with all appropriate Federal agencies, and
provides professional overview of all archeological research under-
taken under Antiquities Act permits.

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11595 PROGRAM

Executive Order 11593 directs the Secretary of the Interior to pro-
vide general procedural and technical advice and assistance to
Federal and State  agencies and to local  groups regarding identi-
fication, evaluation, and preservation of cultural resources.  To
implement the Executive Order, the National Park Service has appointed
three full-time consultants to carry out the archeological responsi-
bilities of the Department of the Interior; one consultant is assign-
ed to the Interagency Archeological Services field offices listed
herein.

These consultants  are authorized  to initiate contacts with Federal,
State, and local agencies; to respond to requests for advice; and to
serve as historic preservation policy and procedure generalists.
They explain the Federal historic preservation mandate, discuss and
aid in the analysis of agency problems,  and as needed notify appro-
priate technical experts and services within other elements of the
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation.

National Park Service architects and architectural historians are
also available to provide advice to Federal, State, and local agencies
on specific technical preservation problems.

THE OFFICE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

was organized within the National Park Service early in 1967 to carry
out more effectively those continuing programs that derive principally

-------
                                 -4-
from the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and to prepare for an increased
responsibility as a result of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966.  The office was conceived as the American equivalent of the
historic monuments services functioning in many other countries.

-------
WORKSHOP I                                            FRANK REDMOND
This Workshop primarily dealt with the actual mechanics of environ-
mental impact statement review to include a brief discussion of the
administrative tracting procedures which EPA uses as a Statement
circulates through its various technical support sections; the details
of EPA's examination of a facility's adherence to both new and existing
provisions of public laws, Executive Orders, etc.; and lastly, the
criteria for assigning a rating to a given project.  As might be ex-
pected, this last matter fostered some of the greatest interest of the
Workshop because although each lead agency (local, State, Federal, etc.)
has a multiplicity of concerns regarding a given project, one of their
paramount considerations is its preception, environmental and otherwise,
by the various review, permitting and enforcement agencies.  In the
case of EPA, an assessment and the subsequent rating is assigned after
the Review Section and technical support branches have made a compre-
hensive evaluation of its environmental advisability.  This rating is
based on its impact on the environment and the adequacy of the State-
ment, per se.

The details of the system follow:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ACTION

LO — Lack of Objection

EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the draft
impact statement or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.

ER — Environmental Reservations

EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain
aspects of the proposed action.  EPA believes that further study of
suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the
originating Federal agency to reassess these impacts.

EU — Environmentally Unsatisfactory

EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its
potentially harmful effect on the environment.  Furthermore, the Agency
believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not
adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action.
The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further
(including the possibility of no action at all).

-------
Workshop I



ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEMENT

Category 1 — Adequate

The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental
impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives
reasonably available to the project or action.

Category 2 — Insufficient Information

EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not contain suf-
ficient information to assess fully the environmental impact of the
proposed project or action.  However, from the information submitted,
the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact
on the environment.  EPA has requested that the originator provide
the information that was not included in the draft statement.

Category 3 — Inadequate

EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately assess
the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that
the statement inadequately analyzes reasonable available alternatives.
The Agency has requested more information and analysis concerning the
potential environmental hazards and has asked that substantial revision
be made to the impact statement.
In order for our responses to meet the requisite time frame, a total
of 10 copies of the Report should be forwarded, viz., 5 copies to
EPA-Washington and 5 copies to the Regional Office in which the project
is located.  This may appear to be a rather large number; however, it
allows for a more timely response by circulating the document simul-
taneously through the various technical support branches.

During the last year EPA has focused on a number of difficult issues
relative to impact statement review, e.g., wetlands protection - Obion
Creek, Ky., St. Phillips Island, S.C.; stream alteration - Black River,
N. C., Swift Creek, N. C., and air quality - Interstate 40 and 75, Knox
County, Tenn. , Interstate 85, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Ga,.

-------
WORKSHOP II - Involving Others in Complying with Executive Orders

Moderator - Sheppard N. Moore
Contractors, Third Party - Bob Flanders, Geo-Marine, Inc. Richardson, Texas
States - Sam Williams, Georgia State Clearinghouse, Atlanta, Georgia
Corps of Engineers - Edwin Reppner, Mobile District, Mobile Alabama
Universities - George Bowen, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
               Marty Wanielista, Florida Technical University, Orlando, Fla.
Media - Leonard R. Teel, Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Georgia
The concept of involving more people in complying with executive orders
was clearly demonstrated in the recent preparation of a third party EIS
by Geo-Marine, Inc., and Region IV EPA concerning the expansion of Kentucky
Utilities Company's Ghent Station on the Ohio River.  The third procedure
allows for the combination of Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS)
and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) procedures by contracting an
independent third party consultant to collect and formulate the complete
EAS/EIS required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) .  By employing the third party procedure, the Company and EPA can
actively participate in and review all phases of EAS/EIS preparation.
This allows for the early resolution of design, construction, or operation
of problems of the proposed structure and the inclusion of the agreed-upon
stipulations in the draft EAS/EIS.  This document is then in a completed
form to receive general comments of all interested parties.

The selection of the method (third and non-third party) by which NEPA
requirements are fulfilled is made in a preliminary conference between
the Company and EPA.  If it is felt that the full EAS and EIS procedure
will be necessary, the third party route is an option the Company has
which can reduce the expenditure of time and work necessary to fulfill
NEPA requirements.

If the third party route is decided upon, a Memorandum of Understanding
between EPA and the Company is drawn up.  The following is the Memorandum
of Understanding for the recently completed third party EAS/EIS for
Kentucky Utilities and is presented to illustrate the duties of each party
in the third party procedure;

-------
General Provisions

(1)  EPA  is ultimately responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements
of NEPA.

(2)  The  Company will provide the supportive expertise, manpower and technical
capabilities required for preparation of an EAS/EIS.

(3)  The  Company will retain Geo-Marine, Inc. as a consultant in accordance
with the  terms and conditions of the purchase order contract tendered by the
Company to EPA and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", as well as the further pro-
visions of this Memorandum of Understanding as same may be applicable; EPA
approves  the selection of Geo-Marine, Inc.  (hereinafter "the Consultant"), and
the Company represents that the Consultant does not and shall not have any finan-
cial or economic interest in the planning,  the design, the construction, or the
operation of the proposed power plant except as same may be provided in Exhibit
"A".

(4)  Both the Company and EPA shall:

     (a)  Actively participate in, and review all, substantial phases of EAS/
          EIS preparation.

     (b)  Designate a representative to review all EAS/EIS work as it is
          developed and completed.

     (c)  Have their respective representatives attend regular meetings with
          Federal, State, regional and local  agencies for the purpose of
          increasing communication and receiving comments on preparation of
          an EAS/EIS.

     (d)  Insure coordination of effort and exchange of information among
          any planning,  design, or construction engineers employed by the
          Company and the Consultant.

(5)  In all instances involving questions as  to the content or relevance of any
material (including all data, analyses, and  conclusions) in any material pre-
pared by the Consultant,  EPA will  make the  final  determination on the inclusion
or deletion of any such  material.

(6)  All costs incurred  in connection with  employment of the Consultant or any
other entities participating in preparation of the EAS/EIS under constract with
the Company shall  be the sole responsibility  of the Company.

Procedures

(1)  The Company shall assure that the work of the Consultant shall  be performed
in accordance with NEPA,  NEPA regulations,  any relevant guidelines as they may
be amended from time to  time, local  and state laws.

(2)  The Company shall assure the  satisfactory and timely performance and com-
pletion of the Consultant's work.

(3)  The Company shall assure that EPA is provided, at a minimum,  no less than
two opportunities  to review, comment, and make editorial changes on draft chapters

-------
of the EAS/EIS as same  are prepared by the Consultant.  EPA will provide these
comments in a timely manner, and the Company shall assure incorporation of the
EPA comments into editorial changes prepared by the Consultant to the satisfac-
tion of EPA.  Final drafts of any documents will be submitted, as prepared, to
EPA for review and approval.

(4)  Any and all work performed by the Consultant pursuant to the preparation
of the EAS/EIS will be submitted directly to the EPA.  The Company may receive
copies simultaneously but in n£ case will they be provided the opportunity to
discuss, review, or edit the work prior to submission to the EPA.

(5)  EPA, Company, and Consultant will agree on the Plan of Study before pro-
ceeding to prepare EAS/EIS.

(6)  The Company shall assure that Consultant provides to EPA access and review
of all procedures and underlying data in connection with contractors developing
any and all reports, including, but not limited to, field reports, subcontractors
reports, interviews with concerned private and public parties whether or not
such information may be reflected in draft or final reports.

(7)  It is understood that EPA may, at its option, work and communicate directly
with the Consultant without participation of the Company, provided, however,
EPA will keep Company advised of any communication.

(8)  The Company shall assure the full cooperation of the Consultant and any
other Company contractors with respect to organizing and conducting any public
workshops, hearings, meetings, and the like, required by law to foster public'
familiarity and/or participation with respect to the EAS/EIS process.

(9)  The Company shall be responsible for the costs of stenographic, clerical,
graphics, layout, printing, and the like, with respect to preparation of the
EAS and, should it be required, the Company shall  be solely responsible for the
aforesaid costs in order to provide to EPA fifteen copies of an EIS draft or final
report as may be required and to include one "cameraVeady" copy sufficient for
EPA's reproduction and distribution.

(10) Upon completion of a draft EIS, EPA will  be responsible for organizing and
conducting the public hearings required by 40 CFR Part 6.  EPA will also be the
recipient of all  comments during the draft EIS review and comment period.  This
period (45-60 days) will  be initiated when the Council on Environmental  Quality
publishes the "draft EIS receipt" in the Federal Register.

(11) At the close of the draft EIS review and comment period, EPA will identify
the issues and comments submitted which will require response in the final  EIS.
EPA will direct these comments to the company and to the Consultant for prepara-
tion of proposed responses.

(12) Upon completion of any such responses, noted above, EPA will provide same,
as they may be modified by EPA, to the Company and to the Consultant for inclusion
into the final  EIS.   The Consultant will  modify the text of the draft EIS as
directed by EPA.

-------
Termination
(1)  Either party to this Memorandum of Understanding may terminate this agree-
ment upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.   During the inter-
vening 30 days, both parties agree to actively attempt to resolve, in good faith,
any disputes or disagreements.

(2)  In the event of termination of this agreement upon completion by the Company
and the Consultant of an EAS, EPA may initiate preparation of any federal EIS.

-------
 Through our experience in preparation of the first third party EAS/EIS in
 Region IV, advantages to both EPA and the Company have become apparent.   These
 are as follows:
      Advantages  to EPA
      1.  Reduced paperwork
              i
 The plan of study is prepared jointly and approved at the beginning of EAS/EIS
 procedure.  This insures that unnecessary work is reduced and that pertinent
 information is formulated into the EAS/EIS.   The EPA also has control  of EAS/EIS
 preparation at the early stages so that the  document contains descriptive infor-
 mation in a concise matter that is suitable  for decision makers  and interested
 parties.

      2.   Reduced delays
 Through consolidation EAS and EIS preparation,  delays due to  review time and
 revisions are reduced.   The reduction of delays results  in shorter overall  pre-
 paration  time and a more up-to-date  document.

      3.   Objectivity of  preparer
 The third party  contractor is initially nominated by the Company but then goes
 through an approval  procedure by EPA to insure  that  the  third  party contractor
 has no financial  or economic interest in the  planning, the design,  the construction,
 or  the operation  of the  proposed structure.

     Advantages  to  the Company
     1.   Savings  of time
The most  important  advantage of the  third  party procedure  is  in the saving of
time.  By  combining  the  EAS  and EIS, delays are  reduced thus reducing costs due
to construction delays.

     2.  Review privilege
The Company is asked to  review all substantial   phases of  EAS/EIS preparation.
This active participation  during  the  whole process enables the Company to correct

-------
Inaccuracies during early stages of preparation and to monitor the progress
of the preparation.  Along the way, information can be volunteered by the
Company that can expedite the process.

In conclusion, Geo-Marine, Inc., has been very pleased with the experience
of preparing the first party EIS in Region IV.  We feel that in many future
projects it will be a valuable option for both the regulating agency and
the company requiring EIS work.

Edwin Kappner explained that the Corps of Engineers wetland policies and
responsibilities under Section 404 of PL 95-12 Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977, a study developed by the Georgia State Clearinghouse.  George Bowen
and Marty Wonielista covered courses and conferences at Universities.

In order to provide substantive comments that relate to specific resources
(State laws, Departmental Rules and Regulations, etc.) on Environmental
Impact Statements, the Georgia State Clearinghouse has published the
Sourcebook of Review Criteria.  These criteria are useful for the review
of all types of applications and Environmental Statements.  These are over
200 criteria directly related to EIS's.  Copies of the book are available
through the Southeastern Federal Regional Council, 2121 Marietta Towers,
Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Attn:  Mr. Hal Schimmacle, phone 404-221-4162.

Following presentations the panel answered questions from those in
attendance.

-------
                             WORKSHOP III
    INFORMATION:  THE BACKBONE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT

                          Carolyn W. Mitchell
                          Region IV Librarian
                               Moderator
                                Part I.

           E.I.S. RESEARCH:  AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES
INFORMATION SOURCES

     Information Search Guidelines
     EPA Library System 	
.Carolyn W.  Mitchell,  Librarian
 U.S.  EPA,  Region  IV Library
         Atlanta,  Ga
 (FTS  257-4216;  CML 404-881-4216)
DATA BANKS

     NEDS
     SAROAD.
.Barry Gilbert,  Data  Coordinator
 Air Programs  Branch, Region  IV
           Atlanta, GA
 (FTS 257-2864;  CML 404-881-2864}
     STORET.
.David Hill,  U.S.  EPA,  Region  IV
 Surveillance and  Analysis  Division
           Athens, GA
 (FTS 250-3113;  CML 404-546-3113)
COMMERCIAL INFORMATION PRODUCTS
     E.I.S,
.Joshua  I.  Smith,  Information
   Resources  Press
 2100 M  St.,  NE,  Suite 316
 Washington,  D.C.      20037
       (202-293-2600)
                               Part II
    INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND NEPA:   A CHECKLIST FOR IMPLEMENTATION
                                              Kenneth W.  Prest,  Jr.,  Consultant
                                              Environmental  Licensing Group,  Inc.
                                              P.O.  Box 7151, Pensacola,  FL  32504
                                                      (904-433-0938)

-------

-------
                             WORKSHOP III
INFORMATION:  THE BACKBONE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT
                                          Carolyn W. Mitchell, Moderator
Part I
E.I.S. Research:  Available Information Resources
     Several types and areas of information have been brought together
for this workshop, along with a checklist for utilizing information ef-
fectively in the E.I.S. process.  Our presentation and resource packet
(see Appendix) represent people, places, publications, services, and data
bases of varying degrees of specialization within the environmental area.
Some resources are free, and some, including ones provided by the federal
government, are fee-based.  An attempt has been made to show the variety
and location of these resources.
     An information search can be complex and difficult.  Basic guidelines
should be considered before embarking on a search in order to avoid frus-
trating, time-comsurning, and inconclusive results.  When addressing en-
vironmental issues it is important to remember that the passage of NEPA
in 1969 and the organization of EPA in 1970 mark the beginning of the
nation's focus on this area, therefore sources which pre-date these events
should be used with caution.  Secondly, it is important toasksomeone who
knows; that is to begin with an appropriate professional:  an information
specialist, librarian, or resource person.  Do not rely on clerical help.
It is equally important to communicate to that person what the problem is,
how the information will be used, and in what time frame it is needed.
"Do not re-invent the wheel," is another basic guideline.  The events of
1969 and 1970 have also brought about a proliferation of environmental
information sources, therefore it can be assumed that the problem or a
perspective on the problem has in all likelihood been researched before.

-------
 It is important to consider:   1.  Who  would  know?
                               2,  Who  would  care?
                               3.  Who  would  care enough  to  publish  or  package it?

 EPA Library System
       A good starting place for general  environmental information  is  the  EPA
 Library System, which includes twenty-seven regional, lab,  and  headquarters
 libraries.   The libraries'  function  is  to support  EPA's mission, a mission
 which embraces anyone with  a  legitimate information  need.   Therefore,  the
collections  and some reference services  are  available to outside users  at  no
 charge.  The Region IV Library i.s part  of this  network. A depository  for Agency
 reports, it has a special  collection  of Southeast  environmental  publications.
The Library's professional  staff can  provide the user access to  both
primary and  secondary sources  of information—that  is, people as well  as
publications.
 Environmental  Data Banks
       More  specific sources of information  are  represented by our  speakers.
 Barry Gilbert, Data Coordinator,  EPA Air Programs  Branch,  works with  NEDS
and SAROAD,  two centralized data banks developed and  managed by EPA.  NEDS
 contains engineering data,  i.e.,  annual emissions  and operating characteristics
on sources of air pollution throughout the U.S.  SAROAD  contains ambient air
 data collected at monitoring sites throughout  the  nation.   Reasonable requests
for data from these banks are serviced for no charge.
       STORET, water data bank counterpart to NEDS  and SAROAD, is not  a
 free service, although access to the system is  available to all legitimate
 requestors.  STORET is a repository for water  quality data from over
       1
        Alden, Todd. Finding Facts Fast. (New York, New York: William
 Morrow & Company,  1972)  p.  7.
                              - 2 -

-------
 200,000  sampling sites;  it provides  the user with a  variety of tools
 to retrieve,  summarize,  analyze,  and  display this  data.   David  Hill, Region
IV's Surveillance and Analysis Division in Athens,  is  responsible for STORET.
       A new commercial  publication, EIS:Key to Environmental  Impact
Statements,  is an example of one of the outstanding new environmental
information  services which have been generated since the passage of NEPA.   EIS,
a subscription, provides  a microfiche  copy of both  draft and  final  impact
statements,  and a well-organized journal  of abstracts  with geographic,  subject,
 and agency  indexes.  Published by Information Resources Press,  Washington  D.C.,
 this service  is available in EPA regional and headquarters libraries.

 Part II
 Checklist For Information Management  in  the NEPA Process, by Kenneth W. Prest
       One of  the most frequent criticisms of environmental impact statements
is that they are full  of  "information", but contain little or no  evaluation
or assessment  of this information.   Kenneth W.  Prest,  an environmental  consultant
 with considerable E.I.S.  experience,  has prepared  a checklist for effective
implementation and evaluation in the NEPA process:
 STEP I: DEFINING THE ACTION, PROBLEM.  OR ISSUE TO  BE  ADDRESSED
       1.  What, specifically, is the problem or issue  to be addressed
          or the action  to be taken? (This should be written  down for greatest
          clarification.)
       2.  What, specifically, is my agency's (section's,  department's)
          role in the NEPA process?
       3.  What specific action must I  take on the problem?
       4.  What statutory,  administrative, policy or attitudinal  limitations
          have been placed on defining  the problem  and on my  role in
          carrying out my  responsibilities?
                                    -  3  -

-------
         5.   How have similar issues  been  handled  in  the past?

         6.   Should the current problem be approached traditionally or
             is a new perspective required?

         7.   Within what time frame must I act?

         8.   How will my actions interrelate  with  those  of  other sections,
             branches, departments, or agencies  involved in the same pro-
             cess?

         9.   What can I anticipate to be the  end result  of  the  process?
             (This can be particularly important since there can be
             several means to any end.)

        10.   What is the extent (significance and  magnitude) of public
             interest in the problem  or issue?  (Identifying public in-
             terest at this stage is  most  important in broadening one's
             perspective of issues.)

        11.   What consequences, long  term  as  well  as  short  term, can
             reasonably be expected to result from action I take in the
             NEPA process?  (Consequences  should be considered  as they
             may result both in the private sector and public domain.)

STEP II:  ACQUIRING INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY AND  EVALUATE THE PROBLEM

         1.   What specific information do  I need to carry out my responsi-
             bilities?  (This should  include  information to satisfy speci-
             fic requirements as well as information  on  the process used
             to achieve objectives.)

         2.   How will the information I produce  be used  in  the  overall
             NEPA process?

         3.   If a technological process is involved,  do  I clearly under-
             stand how this process works  and interacts  with the natural
             air, water, and land resources and  biological  and  human
             systems supporting it?

         4.   In developing technical  information,  how much  detail is
             needed?  What is the minimum level  of information  I need to
             carry out my responsibilities and produce a defensible recom-
             mendation?

         5.   To what extent can I rely on secondary information in lieu
             of primary information?   Can my actions be  justified on a
             qualitative basis or must I develop quantitative input also?

         6.   Can I set priorities on  the kind and  amount of information
                                 - 4 -

-------
             that could be used in my review?

         7.   Where is the information I need located?  Is it available?
             (People as well  as documents should be the basis for consi-
             deration. )

         8.   Is the information in a readily usable  form or will it
             require extensive manipulation and interpretation?

         9.   Can I obtain the information?  If so,  how?

        10.   How long will it take to obtain the information?  Can I
             jusitify extensive researching or other delay in receipt of
             specific information?

        11.   What alternatives are there if I can not obtain the desired
             information?

STEP III:  EVALUATING INFORMATION TO DETERMINE ITS  USEFULNESS

         1.   Is the information obtained relevant to the problem?  (Rele-
             vancy can be reviewed in terms of generally accepted basic
             principles and as pertinent site- or action-specific require-
             ments.)

         2.   How will the information help resolve  the problem or complete
             my responsibilities?

         3.   Is the information obtained valid?  If the validity is ques-
             tionable, how can this be resolved? Where or to whom can I
             go for clarification?

         4.   Regarding site-  or action-specific information, can the in-
             formation be applied directly or must  its use first be con-
             ditioned by assumptions?

         5.   Are the assumptions used in the evaluation reasonable?  Can
             they be, (or have they been), factually and logically stated?
             Are they documented as generally accepted or must they be
             considered unique to the particular situation under review?

         6.   Under what conditions would the assumptions be invalid?
             Might these conditions occur in the situation at hand?

         7.   What are the effects or consequences of using certain assump-
             tions as opposed to others?  Can the choice among assumptions
             be justified; theoretically, empirically, administratively
             (due to policy or law)?

         8.   Once collected,  can the information be reused in other situa-
             tions?  Is it worth storing for future use?
                                 - 5 -

-------
STEP IV:  IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS

         1.   Considering how the problem was defined and what information
             is available to be applied to the problem, what options are
             reasonable for solving the problem or carrying out responsi-
             bilities?

         2.   How can the information be most effectively applied?

         3.   Will selecting one option over another limit future flexi-
             bility or actions?

         4.   Will prevailing influences (i.e., social, legal, attitudinal,
             political, limits-of-knowledge) have an effect on the imple^
             mentation of the alternative chosen?  Will these influences
             be the same at the time the final decision is made as they
             are now?

         5.   Is the alternative and the procedure used to select the
             alternative consistent with the overall impementation of the
             NEPA process?

STEP V:  DECIDING THE SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION

         1.   Have I satisfied my specific statutory and/or job related
             responsibilities?

         2.   Is my action defensible?  Would I make the same decision a
             year from now given the same limits of knowledge, resources,
             and circumstances?

         3.   Have I documented the course of events leading up to my deci-
             sion and recommendation?

         4.   Will my action enhance rather than complicate the NEPA process?

STEP VI:  IMPLEMENTING THE CHOSEN COURSE OF ACTION

         1.   Have I prepared and communicated my position clearly and
             effectively?  Have I used a form (tables, figures, text)
             which best communicates my intent?

         2.   Have I constructed my position logically and completely so
             that the reader will not have to assume my intent, or mis-
             construe my meaning?

         3.   Have I presented reasonable alternatives and recommended the
             "best" course of action given the circumstances and limita-
             tions of time, manpower, and information?

         4.   Can I confidently defend my action under scrutiny?
                                 - 6 -

-------
EPILOGUE
     The CHECKLIST FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT IN THE NEPA PROCESS has
been prepared as a guide to aid effective implementation of decision-making
as directed by the National Environmental Policy Act.  Its value rests not
so much with the specific questions asked, or responses obtained, but as
a road map for a systematic process employed to identify problems, develop
meaningful information, evaluate alternatives, decide a responsible course
of action and implement, knowingly, the decision.  As required, the user
should adopt the process to his specific needs.
     Information management is a skill which must be practiced.  Knowledge
about organizations, systems, management, and human behavior is as important
asspecific technical understanding.  Subsequently, it will behoove the
individual involved in the NEPA process to:
     1.  Generally broaden his skills and knowledge;
     2.  Begin early to identify information sources and to build
         information networks; and
     3.  Recognize and accept that all decisions must be made within
         constraints.  Learn how to use these constraints advantageously.
     With this approach, working within the NEPA framework should become
more objective, more effective, more productive, and more enjoyable to
all involved.

-------
                 Environmental Impact Statement Conference

                              December 7-8 1977

                                 WORKSHOP IV


ENERGY RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

Moderator:  C. L. Wakamo, EPA

Participants: Charlie Kaplan, Thermal Analysis, EPA; Randy Mayfield, Air
              Programs, EPA; Buck Oven, State of Florida; Wally Walquist,
              Department of Interior; Don Mcleod, Don Stinnett, and David
              Gengozian, TVA; Ron Ballard, NRC; George Knighton, NRC; Joe
              Binder, REA; B. H. Rankin?  Warren Zurn, DOE.

The workshop was directed toward gaining an appreciation of what is needed
for new energy source EIS's.  Various aspects of power plant siting and in-
teragency cooperation were the major topics covered in the workshop.  The
agenda included site certification responsibility from a state perspective,
fish and wildlife impacts from the Dept. of Interior viewpoint, screening
of power plant sites and early siting experiences of TVA.

The evaluation of environmental technical specifications for nuclear power
plants was reviewed by NCR, highlighting the impact of NEPA and FWPCA
amendments of 1972.  Review of the last two years experience in implemen-
tation of NRC-EPA second memorandum of understanding regarding respective
responsibilities under NEPA and FWPCA was presented by NRC.  The experience
that both agencies have gained operating under the agreement should be
beneficial in implementation of the proposed CEQ regulations on procedural
provisions of NEPA (6/9/78 Part II).  Discussion of other proposed lead
agency agreements under consideration was discussed by REA.  The workshop
session ended after highlights on the coal conversion program was presented
by Department of Energy  representatives.

The following three papers give a representative sampling of the workshop
activity dealing with energy related environmental impact statements.

-------
                   TVA'S POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM

                        DONALD S. STINNETT, TVA


                             INTRODUCTION

    The TVA power plant siting program has developed from TVA's activities
Involving the supplying of electric power to the 201-county TVA power serv-
ice area (illustrated in figure 1),* and out of its involvement with a
broad range of regional development activities.  The program is dynamic
and responds to the changing conditions in the fields of energy production
and regional development.  From the early 1950's to the mid-1960"s, for
example, TVA's power plant siting program was primarily geared toward the
Identification and investigation of locations for coal-fired facilities.
Later, in the mid- to late 1970's, TVA's power plant siting activities ex-
panded to include nuclear as well as coal-fired facilities.  With the ad-
vent of each new energy-producing technology, criteria for considering
suitable and desirable locations for new facilities are developed.  These
physical criteria, along with regulatory guidelines and statutes, effectively
govern the siting of new power plants.

    Due to the constantly changing institutional requirements and improved
energy-producing technologies, the processes associated with siting a power
plant today are not what they were two years ago and probably will not be
the same two years hence.  Therefore, working from the basic premise that
there are no perfect power plant sites, in that some impacts will be evident
at any site, and that new power facilities will be needed in the future to
assure that energy supplies keep pace with projected use, we can see that an
effective and efficient power plant siting program, continually evolving to
meet changing conditions, is not only desirable but a necessity.


                            THE BASIC AIMS

    It has been TVA's aim in developing its power plant siting program to
assure that siting studies are comprehensive, thorough, effective, and effi-
cient, as well as sensitive to the demands of changing technology and regula-
tory limitations.  These factors have been generally incorporated into three
program goals.

    Conduct Thorough Site Investigations.  Throughout the investigative
    process, TVA solicits broad-based information concerning the many
    factors associated with site suitability determinations.  Inter-
    disciplinary reviews emphasize and assure that the full scope and
    range of pertinent issues are developed in site assessments.
*A11 figures are attached at the end of this report.

-------
                                 - 2 -


    Promote Coordination with Federal, State, and Local Agencies.  As a
    regional resource development agency, TVA recognizes the importance
    of  information exchanges and the mutual usefulness of coordination
    and cooperation  in development of the region's resources.  In this
    regard, TVA wants to further develop the spirit of cooperation in
    Issues surrounding the Tennessee Valley region's energy future, par-
    ticularly with regard to power facility siting.

    Constantly Strive for Improvement.  In developing an investigative
    program as comprehensive as that required for power plant siting, the
    Issues often become complex and demand rigorous study.  As with any
    system, there is the potential for improvement in program processes
    and methodologies.  Improvement of the overall process is the constant
    driving force behind the program and should result in benefits for all
    of  those involved.
                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The TVA site study program is structured around two separate and distinct
processes—the inventory siting process and the project siting process.  The
inventory siting process involves long-term, ongoing studies that are not
geared to any specific power plant.  Its purpose is to review large geographic
areas and to identify, investigate, and select sites believed to be suitable
for future power facilities.  Sites believed to be suitable and desirable for
future facilities may be acquired and placed in an inventory status until
such time that a specific project is designated for the site.  At present,
TVA has two sites in its inventory—Saltillo and Murphy Hill (figure 2).
Saltillo is located in southwestern Tennessee along the Tennessee River, just
north of Pickwick Landing Dam.  Murphy Hill is located in northwestern Alabama
on the Tennessee River, east of Guntersville Dam.

    The project siting process, on the other hand, is geared toward short-term
assessments of alternative candidate locations for a specifically designated
project.  This process works concurrently with the inventory program and to-
gether they play integral parts in TVA's overall energy planning and develop-
ment program.

    In planning for a power facility, many factors must be considered and
many inputs from a varying array of Federal, state, and local agencies and
organizations, as well as private citizens, must ultimately be included.  The
coordination and review of these inputs understandably takes a considerable
amount of time and can potentially impact many project schedules.  One of TVA's
major concerns, therefore, is the recognition of major siting issues as early
1n the site study process as possible so that any concerns held by various
Individuals and interest groups may be addressed as appropriate.   This should
effectively remove many issues from the critical path of a project and facili-
tate cooperative planning, coordination, and allow for greater flexibility in
decision making.

-------
                                 - 3 -


                     TVA ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

    To facilitate understanding of TVA's siting program it is important
to Identify the basic organizational structure established within the
agency to handle this function.  The siting program, because of its inter-
disciplinary nature, receives inputs from almost every division within TVA.
An organizational chart depicting those divisions which play major roles
1n the power plant siting process is illustrated by figure 3.  The tasks of
each organization are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.

    The Division of Environmental Planning conducts environmental studies
to determine the potential environmental impacts that might occur from site
development.  The studies include assessments of aquatic biota, air and
water quality, and radiological hygiene.

    The. Division, of Water Management conducts a wide range of studies which
include geologic, geophysical, hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and thermodynamic
analyses of the site areas, in addition to archaeological investigations.

    The Office of Engineering Design and Construction conducts and coordi-
nates engineering studies and designanalyses to assess the engineering
feasibility of potential thermal power plant sites.  It develops preliminary
project layouts and estimates of development costs.

    The Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development conducts
necessary site-related ecological investigations and assessments.  It pro-
vides technical assistance required for impact assessments on forest, fish,
wildlife, and related natural and recreation resources.  It describes the
location and nature of historical, scenic, cultural, or natural resources.

    The Division of Navigation Development and Regional Studies coordinates
the development of data by interested offices and divisions required for an
assessment of the land use, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of
sites.

    The Office of Agricultural and Chemical Development conducts assessments
to determine the agricultural potentials at each site.  It interviews farmers,
and provides the technical expertise required to determine the cropping
systems, yields, and overall productivity of an area.  It provides information
concerning the agricultural value of potential sites and describes potential
agricultural impacts.                                                     ;

    Other Offices and Divisions also assist in the review of possible sites,
as appropriate, and provide input concerning the site's overall suitability.

    The assessments and various studies that are conducted by the TVA divisions
are usually of a technical nature and are geared to each division's areas of
expertise.  The findings, however, are integrated so that an overall weighing
and balancing of the pertinent characteristics at each power plant site, in-
cluding the engineering requirements, environmental features, and socioeconomic
factors, etc., can be made.

-------
                                 - 4 -


    The Office of Power (POWER) coordinates and directs all activities re-
garding power plant siting.TOWER, in conjunction with the coordinated
Input received from the other supporting divisions prepares the recommenda-
tions for the addition of power plant sites to TVA's power plant site in-
ventory and for the preferred locations of future project sites.

    State Input is Important - An important source of information relating
to potential power plant sites is the input generated by various state and
local agencies and organizations.

    Ideally, this state agency/TVA interface should occur at early stages in
the power plant siting prpcess and thus can be mutually beneficial in several
ways.  For instance, it provides state agencies with the opportunity to keep
abreast of TVA's power plant siting .activities and to articulate early in
the process state interest and concerns; state input can augment TVA's internal
Investigations of potentially suitable sites by adding to the information
base; cooperative studies and reviews can facilitate the overall planning
process in keeping with each agency's responsibilities to the public.


                      THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES

    The two siting processes previously discussed (inventory and project
siting) are functionally broken-down into four phases of investigative study
(figure 4).  Each phase is designed to progressively screen areas in order
to Identify potentially suitable power plant sites.  Although the site screen-
Ing categories remain basically the same, the criteria used for the site
evaluations becomes increasingly specific and demanding with each phase of '-'.
Investigation.

    In general, the .first three phases of the siting process are geared to
the development of a data base and the performance of various assessments
necessary to determine site suitability and are the basic phases associated
with obtaining inventory sites.  The fourth phase places emphasis on either
Inventory management or pre-project planning.

Working Through the Site-Screening Process

    Phase I - The phase I site-screening process is initiated with the selec-
tion of a general region of interest within which there is the likelihood of
Identifying potentially suitable sites.  The studies initiated are designed
to Identify a specific area of interest which exhibits a desirable combination
of resource characteristics for power plant siting.  Characteristically, areas
of Interest exhibit an adequate supply of water, relatively level terrain,
stable seismicity, and compatible land uses, etc.

    Within the areas of interest, potential site areas (figure 5) appearing
to exhibit more suitable characteristics for power plant development are iden-
tified.  Screening criteria for potential site area identification generally
Include the following:

-------
                                 - 5 -


    a.  Engineering characteristics - foundation conditions, site configura-
        tion, other physical features.

    b.  Transportation routes - accessibility by rail, barge, and highway.

    c.  Hydrologic conditions - water availability for plant operation.

    d0  Meterological conditions - wind speeds and directions, temperatures,
        etc.

    e.  Environmental resources - terrestrial and aquatic ecology.

    f.  Recreation, scenic, and historical  resources.

    g.  Land use compatibilities - existing and projected land uses.

    Interdisciplinary reviews of the sites  identified are conducted with those
sites considered to be the most likely candidates, based on the preliminary
assessments, moving to a phase II analysis.

    Phase II - In phase II, the potential  site areas identified are studied
in greater detail to further assess their suitability as power plant sites.
The studies performed are directed toward confirmation of information gathered
in phase I and specific review of explicitly identified potential site areas.
Coordination with state agencies is typically initiated during this phase.
The sites that appear to be the more favorable after phase II assessments are
considered candidate sites (figure 6) and move into phase III studies.

    Phase III - During phase III investigations candidate sites are evaluated
to ascertain which locations appear to offer the greatest potential for power
plant siting.  The evaluation is based on a balanced approach of considering
engineering, environmental, economic, social, and cultural features.   Phase III
investigations require access to the site area in order to gain specific in-
formation for site assessments.  Access privileges to the site area are ob-
tained by TVA through an easement or right  of entry grant from property owners.
Once these rights have been obtained, specific onsite studies and analyses are
Initiated.  These studies are designed to investigate and define in some de-
tail the suitability of each site area for  power plant siting.  The nature of
the onsite studies vary depending on the type of capacity being considered.
Typically,, the studies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the follow-
ing:

    a.  Detailed engineering studies including core drillings, geophysical
        testing, soil sampling, etc.

    b.  Alternative access considerations.

    e.  Flooding, streamflow, and water quality studies.

-------
                                 - 6 -


    d.  Atmospheric data collection.

    e.  Terrestrial and aquatic ecology resource assessments.

    f.  Recreational, scenic, historical, and archaeological surveys.

    g.  Land use surveys and other factors pertinent to the construction
        and operation of a potential power facility.

    With the completion of phase III studies, sites believed to be favorable
for site development may be acquired.  Just before or immediately following
acquisition, a site moves into the fourth phase of investigation.

    Phase IV - The phase IV investigations are divided into two associated
aspects—inventory site management and pre-project planning.

    In the inventory site management aspect of phase IV, studies are con-
ducted to gather specific information required for licensing and regulatory
procedures, or to support early site review and approval.  Inventory sites
are also monitored for any changes on or near the site that could possibly
affect future site suitability or require special assessments.

    The pre-project planning aspect of phase IV includes the planning and
assessment activity required for" a specific project.  This could involve ths
evaluation of alternative inventory sites or, in some circumstances, the con-
sideration of non-inventory sites which have been previously identified and
investigated.


                        TVA/STATE COORDINATION

    There are several areas in which state input could be effective, and we
would like to explore any avenues that would improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the coordination process.  However, based on past discussions
and practices, and review of the investigative process, we believe that the
most effective time for state review and input is when a potential site area
Is Identified.  At that point, which is phase II of the process, specific
site areas can be identified along with a description of the screening criteria
utilized in their identification.  At this point information can be distributed
for review and comment to all agencies involved in the review of power plant
siting Issues.  We believe, however, that it might be beneficial to develop
more fully some informal lines of communication in the form of informal meet-
Ings between state and TVA staffs or other means believed to be mutually be.ie™
flcial to facilitate this review.

    The avenues of approach are potentially numerous and open to be explored,
Our Interest and concern is to develop the means of effectively soliciting
and incorporating the comments and issues identified through the site investi-
gation and. review process and work toward any early resolution of potential

-------
                                 - 7 -


conflicts that may be of significance.  As the study process develops and
more specific information is gathered, followup reviews and discussions con-
cerning status of investigations of future project planning, etc., may prove
to be beneficial.


                                SUMMARY

    TVA, in its review of potential locations for future power facilities,
utilizes information from many varied sources, including Federal, state,
and local agencies.  We anticipate that the need for these inputs will con-
tinue in the future and will probably expand beyond the present scope.  To
facilitate the development of a broader, more workable interface with appro-
priate state and local agencies, we believe a basic understanding of TVA's
site selection process is not only desirable but essential.  In an effort
to promote this understanding, and as a basis for discussions of the process
and improved TVA/state coordination possibilities, we have prepared this
short informational summary which describes the TVA site study and selection
program.

    TVA's 4-phased siting process is designed to encourage early input of
Information and identification of significant issues.  The emphasis 1s on
early because the more complete and effective the coordination in early phases
of the investigations, the more-effective and efficient the entire program.
Therefore, it is essential that early-on coordination and cooperation with
state agencies and other organizations in the site investigation process be
initiated and maintained.

-------
 n t-1 5 *  01
?.•SgB^RS
S5e-e5'L??«
^E||S2|SS

8l!!.rvff$B.*
   .3
  5 1 S-. 1
  H- rr i 5 -
 Of ^ *1
 r7   R
                                                                        ^/^r    ^_ ^>

-------

-------
02
CQ
K
H

fe
O

25
O
t— I
H
<
SJ
i— i
S5
<
O
K
O









t»
BS
e
M
£
S
h
O
Q
BS
O
«
















































04
w w
a! <3
Hg
fc <
° i
W j
o 3
M •<
fe M
o z
w
o










































•••••M






















J
ENVIRONMENTS
,r;iH*liB»B

ICAL SERVICES
a
Ed
S

o
5 «.
w
>- 0
EH J-l
OS >
S «
s s
OS
OH


O
2
03
•<
O
03
CH

FINANCE


J
H
2;
Q
00
PS
H
(X


>
-J





















































1
OFFICE OF
TRIBUTARY AREA
DEVELOPMENT

JRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
< 3
fc, g
O IM
•j U
S a
S °
b. Q
0 2
<


M £
W t
^ g
g e
% S
o 5
1 i
i i
e



E OF
NG DESIGN
TRUCTION
SSI
s i s
3 g
g <


i
g s
g e
M
i


tOBISTRY,
FI8HEBIES AMD
WIUJLIKB

DEVELOPMENT
SVELOPMENT
a p
B ' J
1 S
O w
1 S

a! GI
< Q £ 00 |_
£2 * 2 e 5
! ^ S z fe 1
: — 31 S *• *
g|l|S
*» S •* S 3
**a|a
:igs|^
: C 3 «*• S 3E
i S = 2 s 1
' » SS g Z
;<|«- S s
. a» S o S a



an
S
00
M
«
1
0
g


§S
Is,
H I
il
* s
1

tPFfpgtoria&NT
LAND BETWEEN
THE LAKES

DERATIONS
J
o
^H
S
H
a




^^
;1
•1



S5
O
H-l
fl
CJ
a
as
z
o
o



"• 'Y'>;:"A
«-ff^ " ' a'""£fh
V -'»'*• *
•-:- ' . /il

                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                           a s
                                                                                                             «
                                                                                                           g

                                                                                                           O SB

                                                                                                           < H
                                                                                                           S SB
                                                                                                           SB «

                                                                                                           5'
                                                                                                           M O
                                                                                                           O O

                                                                                                           •* 2
                                                                                                           >• f-
                                                                                                           is
                                                                                                           >. a  a.
O  CO CQ
«  z a
»•  2 S
CO  CO <
O  O CO

H  M o
<  M ~
a  a «
a  i- <;
o  o >
•< as E2
s g s
s « >
g * s
w o o
5 as •<

-------
PHAS
GENERIC ST.
POTENTIA
rgM
2
jjj HH b^
M ^^
H W 1— 1
WGO
W0
«fl






I
'T3
° w
i >
co r/3
H
>

(/)
Si
1
(/)
m
r
m
O
H
M
^—
5
m
0)
en

-------
3
|
M
«n
CO
O
O
                                                        CO
                                                        H

-------

-------
             ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (ETS)

                        RONALD L. BALLARD, NRC


It is reasonable to assume that most of us attending this workshop have
been directly affected in one way or another by the strong environmental
movement that characterized the first half of this decsde.  The volume of
environmental legislation that has been enacted during this period has
impacted not only private industry, but also has had a significant effect
on Federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing these
statutes.  Mot only did the statutes place demands on the technical capa-
bilities of the Federal agencies; a number of them created situations of
overlapping regulatory responsibilities which resulted in duplicative and,
at times, conflicting regulations.

A case in point, which is relevant to this discussion, is the passage in
1969 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the subsequent.
passage in 1972 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(FWPCA).  Both of these statutes had similar objectives, but used different
means to accomplish them.  NEPA is basically a policy act, incorporating
the principles of balancing environmental costs and benefits of proposed
activities and consideration of alternatives to assure that, on balance,
a reasonable decision is reached.  The FWPCA has a specific objective of
minimizing the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters and a long-term
goal of eliminating pollutant discharges.  Thus, we have a situation where
two statutes are concerned with environmental protection and require regu-
latory attention; yet they differ in methods for achieving their desired
goals.

NRC's approach under NEPA for factoring environmental considerations into
our licensing process has been to identify areas of potential concern by
way of environmental impact assessments and to impose license conditions
in the form of environmental technical specifications to assure satisfactory
performance.  This was a convenient extension of the procedures that were
already developed to control radiological releases.  In view of our limited
understanding of the non-radiological interactions of power plants with
biological systems, the early license conditions were designed not only to
regulate pollutant discharges but to verify that effects predicted in the
environmental statements were in fact valid.

In a subsequent' development, the Environmental Protection Agency has estab-
lished a national system of permits to regulate the discharge of water-borne
pollutants.  In view of the similar objectives of the two agencies, NRC has
worked closely with EPA in the development of procedures that encourage
close interagency coordination of environmental  reviews, and thus provide
a means for minimizing duplicative enforcement activities.

-------
                                 - 2 -
A good (teal has been learned regarding the environmental problems asso-
ciated with power plant operation in the years since NEPA was enacted
into law.  The environmental monitoring programs at operating plants have
provided useful information that permits us to reconsider our procedures
and revise them to reflect the knowledge that has been gained.  We have
found, for example, that thermal pollution is a more manageable problem
than first thought, and that mathematical modeling of heated water dis-
charges has advanced to the state where more confidence can be placed on
predicted environmental effects.  We are more confident that power plant
effects on primary producers, such as phytoplankton, are of less concern
than originally feared.  The new information, in conjunction with coopera-
tive procedures established with EPA, provides us with a basis for review-
ing and modifying our methods for regulating power plants.

Our analysis of the ETS programs indicates that non-radiological areas
suitable for revision can be placed into three general categories.  The
first category deals with the need for standardization.  There are about
64 licensed nuclear plants in operation, most with ETS which are essentially
customized to specific plant-site conditions.  These ETS include constraints
on plant operation in the form of limiting conditions of operation, detailed
environmental monitoring programs, and administrative procedures which are
unique to each facility.  The variations in requirements from plant to
plant result in differing interpretations and occasionally introduce con-
fusion in the management and enforcement of the programs.  We are, therefore,
attempting to apply the experience gained from the ongoing ETS programs to
standardize the format and content of the ETS for future power plants.  An
in-house task group has been organized and is drafting standardized ETS for
two power plants that are currently under review.  These plants were selected
primarily on the basis of widely differing design and operating characteristics
We are working with the applicant's staff on the final phases of one case and
the results are promising.

The second category of changes is related to the first, and can be classi-
fied as procedural or administrative modifications.  Because of the detailed
nature of the ETS, situations frequently arise in which changes are warranted.
However, ETS changes also require a license amendment; a formal legal process
which may not always be warranted if only rnoo'est changes are involved.  This
problem should, of course, be alleviated somewhat by the standardization pro-
cess mentioned earlier.  A more positive solution is to find ways to reduce
the need for license amendments and to find improved ways to make the changes
that are needed.  This is being accomplished by transferring a great deal of
monitoring detail from the ETS to a separate document and by authorizing the
licensee to make certain changes to the monitoring programs without prior
NRC approval.  A precedent for this process is already contained in our regu-
lations regarding quality assurance programs, and the concept should also be
applicable to environmental monitoring programs.

-------
                                 - 3 -


The third general area in need of attention involves duplication of regu-
latory enforcement.  I mentioned earlier that a good deal of overlap ex-
isted between the environmental technical specifications issued by NRC and
the discharge permits issued by the EPA or permitting states.  Procedures
for coordinating our joint review functions with EPA have been established
by means of a Memorandum of Understanding, thus alleviating the problem of
conflicting regulations.  We plan to carry this concept a step further in
our ETS program by'avoiding the inclusion of pollutant discharge limitations
which are also included in an applicant's discharge permit.

Perhaps a brief comparison of the new ETS format with the existing format
will assist in illustrating the overall effects of the changes.  First, a
glossary of terms which frequently appear in ETS is currently being developed.
Although this may appear at first to be a trivial matter, different inter-
pretation of technical terms frequently results in enforcement problems.
Occasions will almost certainly arise when special definitions will be re-
quired for specific sites and these occasions will be accommodated.  However,
every attempt will be made to minimize the need for special definitions.

With regard to "Limiting Conditions of Operation," we expect to delete from
our ETS numerical limits for any parameter identified in the Environmental
Statement which is also regulated by means of a Section 402 NPDES permit.
However, in view of the fact that the parameter was identified in NRC's re-
view as an issue of concern under NEPA, a monitoring requirement will gener-
ally be included in the ETS.  We expect that the NRC monitoring requirement
will be consistent with the permit requirement, and will result in no addi-
tional burden to the licensee.  Furthermore, if a water quality parameter of
NRC concern is not controlled by an applicant's Section 402 NPDES permit,
NRC will retain the option of including a condition for that parameter in
the license.

As I mentioned earlier, it has often been necessary to amend an operating
license to take into account minor changes to environmental monitoring pro-
grams.  Future ETS will contain only critical parameters needed to identify
and establish a program, and the implementation details will be contained
in a separate document.  While requests for changes of ETS must be processed
as they have in the past, separation of the technical details from the ETS
reduces the need for license amendments and permits greater flexibility in
the management of the monitoring programs.

Perhaps the greatest change from past practice is contained in the adminis-
trative section of the ETS format.   The scope of the separate procedures
document is described in this section, as well as a description of associated
modifications and reporting requirements.  Provision is made in this section
for initial approval by NRC and for subsequent management of the programs;
including modifications, by the licensee.  Also included are references to
the requirements of PL 92-500, including certifications, NPDES permits, and
requirements for notifying NRC of any changes to such permits.

-------
                                 - 4 -


A description of just how this process is being applied to an ongoing case
review will serve to illustrate the points I have made.  The original
draft ETS for the facility contained five limiting conditions of opera-
tion, dealing with temperature and chemical discharge limits.  Close coordi-
nation with EPA and the State in their development of the applicant's NPDES
permit resulted in a discharge permit which satisfactorily treated the
issues raised in the NRC's environmental  impact statement.  This successful
coordination permits the current draft ETS to contain no numerical con-
straints for water quality parameters.  There are, hoy/ever, reporting re-
quirements for these parameters, which are deemed necessary to satisfy our
responsibilities under NEPA.  In this particular case, the reporting re-
quirements place no different burden on the applicant than the permit al-
ready requires, thus helping to resolve the problem of conflicting regula-
tions.  It should be pointed out, though, that a situation could arise
where a discharge permit may not regulate a parameter that has been identi-
fied in the NRC environmental assessment as of potential concern.  Our
present stance is that a numerical water quality constraint can be included
as an NRC license condition if such a constraint is not identified in the
discharge permit.

To continue with my illustration, application of the standardized format
has resulted in a significant reduction of technical detail.  The monitoring
program descriptions are abbreviated and incorporate only the requirements
deemed critical to assure satisfactory resolution of the issue.  The appli-
cant has submitted, instead, a detailed procedures document which is currently
under review by NRC staff.  Subsequent to NRC staff approval of the proce-
dures, the applicant will be responsible for managing the programs and will
be authorized to modify the programs, provided that the original intent of
the monitoring requirement is not compromised.

There are two general  conditions in the administrative section of the ETS
which serve to place constraints on licensee changes to monitoring programs.
The first condition identifies four monitoring parameters which are of such
importance that changes must be reported to the NRC within a specified time
after their implementation.  These parameters are sampling location, fre-
quency, gear, and replication.  The second condition focuses on the need
for maintaining consistency with previously approved procedures.  This con-
dition requires that any program modifications be supported by appropriate
comparative sampling studies which allow direct comparisons with previously
collected data.  The intent of these conditions is to assure that data
generated by the monitoring programs meet a statistically valid level of
quality.

In order for the procedures I have described to work efficiently, we need
the cooperation of the nuclear utility industry.   A situation that frequently
arises is the reporting of operating parameters to the NRC with numerical

-------
values which differ from those submitted in conjunction with a discharge
permit application.  We recognize, of course, that design modifications
are sometimes necessary and desirable after submittal of initial plans.
However, in order for the NRC to adopt a discharge permit limit or monitor-
ing program, the numerical basis must be consistent with tnat evaluated in
its environmental statement.  If the permit value differs, it is necessary
for NRC to obtain new input from the applicant and reevaluate impacts.
Thus, close attention on the part of the industry to keeping all relevant
agencies informed of modifications affecting the environment will maximize
the benefits to be gained by the new process.

The steps that have been described here are believed to be responsive to
needs for improving the efficiency of the licensing process and for re-
ducing duplication in the enforcement of regulations.  We are only in the
formative stages of accommodating the procedures to actual operating con-
ditions, and some revisions may still be necessary.  However, it should be
kept in mind that the responsibilities placed on Federal agencies under
NEPA are different than those set forth in the Water Quality Act.  While
some duplication is probably unavoidable as the statutes are now written,
a cooperative effort on the part of the nuclear industry will assist us in
developing more efficient procedures which are also responsive to the man-
dates of both Acts.

-------
 z
 o
 H
 O

 £
 o
 uj
 fi.
O

i
S
O
UJ
I-
     O





















•
c
o
"Zj
'c
•+Z
o
Q
•a
c
v>
CU
3
cu
U
o
DL
CU
CO
co
a
a>
CO
o
c
CU
+"•
CO
o
a
o
U
c
"O CU
C 
CU
3
"O
CU
O
O
aZ

.£.
to •— •
E -M
S .E
cn'ca
O +3
Ql c
'£ T3
f* ^L f
CO 'd
JC 0
0 S
Sal

CU
CU
JC
^
CO
b
o

^-
a.'
UJ
*£..
C3)
C
"4-1
0)
CU
Q
>»
ja
V'
C
O
s
.i
LJ
^.j
c
CU
u_
                   CO
UJ
N
                           CNl
                                          CO
                                                    LU
U]
~o
c
i
CU
Standardized

JC
15
CO
V)
LU




il Changes
l\l
l_
3
CU
O
o
t_
a.
•M
0)
Q
C35
C
L.

Remove Mon

CO*




CU
O)
co
C
CO
5E
.a
Document to






«=^
o
0)
c
(U
_o
Provide for L

.d




§
"CO
o
a
<
O
oc
Zi
IL.
O
(X






o
C
E
0)
0
*c
UJ
'£•
CO'
U
J
_J
TJ
'o
^
<^

4J
f_
cu
a.
UJ
Q
tc
^^
"S
!H
>
J**
QL
                                                    C*
Cft

-------
 2
 a
 cnta
 LL,
 MR*
 u
 a
O

H



K
115
yj





slew Requirements
£.




CO
Jj
T***
c

O
i_
'5
cr
Oi
DC
o:
.E
CO
'x
LU






co
O
"X3
o
(U
CO
CO
LU


 Q}
4-* 4_j
ro CO
a. c
ird Definitions for all
ary) Except for Certa;
c Items
"D to ~
C O °
55 §.
CO *— CO
T3
03
CL
O
~r?
>

Q
C 'co
o3 ra
o ro
Is
QJ .>
CO c
0) —
*"* C
CO 0









c
o
"•p
"E
O)
Q
^

t.^
._
CO
LU
Numerical Limits of
NPDES Permit.
52 .E
-5 g
Q "co

<2

OJ

,1
H--
LU
0 CO
1.5
'-J TJ
s£
•— '+*
(ii *"*
« Q. -rj
a) —


M—
O
C .— i
O co
'*"* O
'-a o
c: _j

0^
CD O
C '42
'4^ CO
'E a
.E CL
CN
II mi • 	
CO
•M C -Q

-§ '^.c
<£. '~ +3
Monitoring Details. ,
irdized Program Desci
ritical Parameters Re
-•
• $ •§ vJ CO
JtJ c •*- m
Q co ^ .E
CO
E
ro
0)
0
!••
Q.
CT
.E
o
.ti
'E
o
S
"S
"l"l—
^3
0)
Q
O)
.E
o
'E

«=2
"c^
+^
C
0)
c
o
c
UJ
CO
co
•f-"1 C
D. O
0 £
t3 Q.
 c o3
0 +2 5


L.
O a?
*«" a
co o
c 8
§ w
E "0
£.§
Ij
a -j
CC H-
"O
nz .52
AJ tl
Q co






o

"O
CO

15
'o
0)
a.
CO
^

-------

p
*
O T)
CD CD
3-
__.. 	
o' r+
cu w
r-f CU
fa
to
2
O
^r
H
CD
DJ
f_f
CD
D.






cr <» TJ
^ -1 CD
'p
DO p
>3
i 5'
SL "a
<• ca
«* 3
3- r*
SO
CD ID
XI EJ.
E. o
CD
a

CD
*
•JJ
CD
•o
o
*"*\
Et
3*
CO


O)
«>
CD
a.
QJ
3
Q.
m
X
c?
to
^"'
CD

cn co
to' 53'
3 D
3 D-
'dized Report Requirernen
ant Reduction in Prompt
3 M
(D -<"
•Q
O
M

Ol
> >
0
7 i.

o ^
CD S
O rt^
^ *"*
cc <'

CD
CD
13
CD
Q>

"U
"^
§
cfl'
5'
3
CO



^ DO r
S- S. co
— . to 3
3 CD in
in CD
e Manages Approved Progi
Them W/O Prior NRC Ap
Established Guidelines.
"0 o)
3 3
< VI
" "




rn
H
CO
CO
CD
O
o'
3

m
X
in'
ct.
5'
CO
_
CP
n
c
— \
3
CD
3
in
•z.
ew Requirements




                                                                                         m
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         2
                                                                                         c3
                                                                                         Bi3
                                                                                         m
O

                                                                               5*   «»  r^*
                                                                               "«•   BV»  Diem
                                                                                    ~\am
                                                                               G   i
                                                                               m   ^*
                                                                               O   2
                                                                                         P"
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                         m
                                                                                         O

                                                                                         H
                                                                                         n*i
                                                                                         O

-------
          IMPLEMENTING THE SECOND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
                           BETWEEN NRC-EPA

                         GEORGE KNIGHTON, NRC


Introduction

For the purpose of effectively implementing NEPA and the FWPCA consistent
with both acts, the public interest, the NRC and EPA entered into the
Second Memorandum of Understanding.  This agreement clarifies the respec-
tive roles of NRC and EPA in the decision-making process concerning the
licensing of nuclear power stations and other facilities requiring NRC
license or permit.  The agreement was effective on January 30, 1976, and
serves as the legal basis for NRC decision-making concerning licensing
matters covered by NEPA and Section 511 of the FWPCA.

Approximately two years have passed since the agreement went into effect,
and thus this EPA workshop is an appropriate time to reflect on our ex-
periences under the agreement to date.

Implementation

Since the "Memorandum of Understanding" recognizes NRC as the "Lead Agency"
in preparing environmental statements for nuclear power plants and certain
other activities, it will obviate the need for EPA to prepare separate en-
vironmental  statements for such facilities.  EPA has thus agreed to exercise
its best efforts to issue complete Section 402 discharge permits as far as
possible in  advance of the planned date of authorization by NRC of any
commencement of construction.  As "Lead Agency" the NRC Environmental Project
Manager takes the lead in communicating to the applicant those minimum NRC
and EPA requirements for information to facilitate their respective environ-
mental evaluations.  Requests for additional information, as needed in speci-
fic situations may be directed to the applicant by EPA, with coordination
with NRC to  the maximum extent possible.

NRC Environmental Project Managers or EPA Project Officers are required to
taka the following actions on a case by case basis:

1.  Notify the sister agency project officer and the State environmental
    authorities, when they become aware of plans of an applicant to con-
    struct a nuclear power plant or other facility covered by the "Memorandum."
    This is  important to work with applicant to develop an acceptable program
    to monitor water quality aspects required for detailed assessments of
    aquatic  biota and intake structure "best technology available."

2.  EPA designates Regional  Project Officer.  Authority to coordinate EPA re-
    view in  a timely fashion without impacting environmental review schedules.

-------
                                  -  2  -
 3.   EPA shall  inform applicant of EPA data  requirements  on  water quality
     and biota.   On  316(A)  and  (B)  exemption we  anticipate EPA will  invoke
     the need for 18-24 months  requirement for data  prior to environmental
     report submittal  on a  case by case basis in order to accommodate
     those plants currently in  the planning  stage or under review by NRC.

 4.   NRC, EPM in consultation with EPA will  notify applicant of the  ad-
     visability of applying for a  Section 401 water  quality  certification
     from the State  as soon as  he  is  aware of applicant plans.

 5.   NRC, EPM requested applicant  to  submit  copies of ER  to  EPA Project
     Officer and State water quality  permit  agency at the time he tenders
     the ER to  NRC.

 6.   NRC, EPM takes  lead in communications with  applicant from acceptance
     review stage award.

     A)   EPA can request information  direct  prior coordination to avoid
         duplication.

     B)   Copies  of correspondence  to  sister  agencies and  permit state.

 7.   NRC, EPM will  inform and afford  opportunity to  take  part in site  visits,
     technical  conferences  and  other  meetings having a bearing on water
     quality or related issues. Also afford opportunity  to  observe  at meet-
     ings with  applicants and parties to NRC proceedings  where environmental
     issues related  to other areas of EPA jurisdiction are discussed.  Parti-
     cipation should be pre-arranged  with NRC, EPM.

 8.   NRC, EPM and EPA Project Officer identify major areas of concern  with
     regard to  water quality.   Subsequently, they should  keep each other in-
     formed of any differences  in  position and of any new information  which
     becomes available.   If any issues remain unresolved  both positions  will
     be  stated  in the DES.

 9.   NRC, EPM shall  apprise the EPA Project  Officer of the anticipated sched-
     ule and provide opportunity to explore  schedule flexibilities before
     NRC moves  to final  schedule approval.   EPA  is notified  of the final
     schedule.   .Scope of EPA input will be worked out on  a case by case  basis
     between NRC, EPM and EPA'Project Officer.

10.   During DES comment period, EPA will review  and  comment  pursuant to
     Section -309 of Clean Air Act  on  the DES prepared by  the NRC staff.

11.   EPA's 309  comments will be accurately reflected in the  FES together
     with NRC staff responses where appropriate.

-------
                                  - 3 -


12.  NRC, EPM supplies copies of all comments on the DES to EPA as soon
     as they are received.  EPA participates with NRC in responding to
     those comments upon water quality matters and other areas  of EPA juris-
     diction and related expertise.

 Scnedule:

 The typical schedule for the NRC/EPA review under the Second Memorandum
 would be as follows:
     18-24 months prior to docket NRC/EPA/State meeting.
     EPA/NRC utility interface - applicant advised of data needs.
     1 month before docket - Acceptance Review.
 4)  3 1/2 months after docket - DES issued - Draft NPDES.
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
1 1/2 months - comment period & DNPDES & Notice of Hearing.
1 month after comments received and DNPDES issued - EPA Hearing.
8 months after docket - FES issued.
9 months after docket - NRC Environmental Hearing.
Notice of Final NPDES permit.
20 days for opportunity to request EPA Adjudicatory Hearing.
30 day waiting period for EPA Adjudicatory Hearing Decision.
EPA Adjudicatory Hearing.
Final NPDES permit.
13 1/2-months NRC -  Limited Work Authorization.
15)  NRC Construction Permit.

 Experience;

 Since the Second Memorandum went into effect January 30, 1976, NRC and EPA
 have implemented it in the following cases:

     o/t Omaha Public Power District - Ft.  Calhoun 2 (p/s)
     c/t Tennessee Valley Authority - Phipps  Bend 1  & 2
     c/t Public Service Company of Oklahoma - Black  Fox 1 & 2
     c/t Tennessee Valley Authority - Yellow  Creek 1 & 2
     o/t New  England Power Company - New England 1 & 2
     c/t Gulf States Utilities - Blue Hills 1 & 2

 Other cases  where cooperation has been instigated or carried out to varying
 degrees (some are Permittee State cases)

     New Hampshire Public Service Company - Seabrook
     Public Service of Indiana - Marble Hill
     Houston  Lighting and Power - Aliens Creek (React)
     Carolina Power and Light  Company - Brunswick
     Consolidated Edison - Indian Point 2
     Power Authority of the State of New York - Greene County

-------
                                 - 4 -
Results
Experience to date has had a very high degree of success.  Such performance
has been due to the cooperative attitude of EPA/NRC and permit state agen-
cies in recognizing that the parallel performance of the NEPA, FWPCA and
even State reviews are very much to the advantage of the agencies, the pub-
lic and the applicant.  The coordination between agencies to date has gen-
erally extended the previous NRC schedule, however, the benefits derived
for the applicant and the public - considering the sequential evaluation
of environmental impacts, new information effecting previous agency decisions
and potential of opposing positions by the various concerned agencies cer-
tainly appears to justify the coordination.

State MOll's

Virginia is the first State to enter into an agreement under the FWPCA with
NRC.  That agreement became effective on October 26, 1977.  -The Virginia
agreement is very similar to the NRC/EPA MOU except that it applies only to
Nuclear Power Plants rather than all nuclear facilities, and it provides for
NRC and the Virginia State Water Control Board to explore means by which
parts of HRC's environmental statements could be prepared jointly or coopera-
tively.  Also, the wording of the Virginia agreement is much simpler than that
of the Second NRC/EPA Memorandum.

Earlier this week, we received a pre-signed proposed agreement from the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental  Control that contains
the essential provisions of the NRC/EPA Memorandum and covers all! nuclear
facilities rather than just nuclear power plants.  That agreement is currently
undergoing staff review by NRC and hopefully, will be concluded in the near
future.

Negotiations with the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and
the Environment and the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Public
Service are well underway.  As presently proposed, there will be a basic
Memorandum of Understanding with the appropriate New York agencies that pro-
vides for cooperation in all matters of concurrent jurisdiction under NEPA
rather than just water quality matters.  This Memorandum will be supplemented
by separate ancillary agreements which provide for the State to prepare
portions of environmental impact statements for NRC under mutually acceptable
guidelines.  Currently two such agreements have been drafted and are under-
going staff review.  These agreements would provide for appropriate New York
agencies to prepare the water quality and need for power portions of NRC's
environmental statements for nuclear power plants.  It is anticipated that
similar agreements in other areas such as air quality, terrestial ecology,
land use, esthetics, etc. may be negotiated in the future.

-------
                                 - 5 -
Also, New York and NRC in August completed a "Joint Working Paper for the
Preparation of Environmental Reports for Generating Facilities in New York
State."  This document is intended for use by any New York State utility
for the preparation of a single environmental report which will satisfy
the environmental requirements of both the State and NRC.

Negotiations for agreements are well underway with Georgia and Michigan
and are in various early stages of development with California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon and Washington.  It is our intent to open
negotiations with additional EPA permitting States depending upon State
interest and staff availability.

Even in the absence of formal agreements, considerable cooperation and
coordination exists between the States and NRC.  Joint NRC/State hearings
which are considered on a case-by-case basis provide a good example.

In the case of Douglas Point, for example, joint environmental hearings be-
tween the State of Maryland and NRC were held in July-August, 1976 for the
proposed Douglas Point Nuclear Power Plant to be located adjacent to the
Potomac River about 30 miles below Washington, D. C. in Charles County,
Maryland.  The joint hearing involved close coordination between the State
and NRC in technical review and development of the joint hearing protocol.
The hearing was a success as attested to by both the NRC and State agencies
in terms of function, Federal/State relations, and avoidance of duplicative
effort.

Another instance is that of Greene County.  In this case, both NRC and the
New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment have
substantial areas of concurrent jurisdiction in the licensing of the proposed
facility.  On November 9, 1976, the Commission and the State of New York
agreed to hold a joint hearing on matters of common interest and concurrent
jurisdiction on the proposed Greene County Nuclear Power Plant.  The eviden-
tiary hearing on environmental  matters began on January 4, 1977 before a
joint hearing board made up of the ASLB and two hearing officials from the
New York State Board of Electric Generating Siting and the Environment, with
participation by the parties admitted in both proceedings.

We believe that joint hearings  will bring considerable benefits both to the
Federal and Sta.te licensing process, and avoid costly duplication of effort
and lead to the development of better and more complete records,  and conse-
quently, to more informed decisions.   Joint hearings should also enhance
the opportunity for effective public participation in the decisional pro-
cesses of both agencies.

The degree of difficulty in fulfilling the Memorandum varies  with the type
of cooling system (i.e.,  cooling tower,  cooling lake or pond and once-through

-------
                                 - 6 -


cooling and site location).   The cooperation of the agencies  on  the Phipps
Bend, Black Fox, Yellow Creek, and the use of cooling towers  certainly per-
mitted timely environmental  reviews.  Ft.  Calhoun,  Blue Hills, New England
and Aliens Creek take considerably more coordination as a result of once-
through condenser cooling on rivers, ocean or cooling lakes  requiring sig-
nificantly more effort for aquatic assessment and best available technology
assessment for the.intake.

There has been some difficulty experienced as a result of independent con-
sultation by the agencies involved with Department  of Interior concerning
rare and endangered species.  Such duplication has  resulted  in delays due
to conflicting positions by Department of Interior.  Such problems can be
solved by agency coordination prior to requesting Department  of  Interior
position.

There has been difficulty on "old sources" in the NRC operating  license
stage environmental review or changes in NPDES conditions on  operating
plants.  Although the Second Memorandum covers "new sources"  because of
EPA's responsibility to prepare an environmental  statement,  extending the
cooperative interchange of change of status, new information  coordination
prior to actions taken by either agency or the appropriate state could be
extremely helpful.

It should be emphasized that it is desirable for EPA to assign a single
coordinating point for each case as NRC does in its assignment of an EPM.
This certainly is not intended to reduce participation by additional repre-
sentatives.

Conclusion:

We believe the grades earned by all participants  under the Second Memorandum
of Understanding should be high.  This is  due to the cooperative attitude  of
the agencies in improving the process to the benefit of the  public, applicant
and their respective agencies.

-------
                                                                   Appendix 1
                      WHERE TO FIND EIS-RELATED MATERIALS
DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES FOR GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS:
         Public and university libraries (217 in the Southeast) compose a
         nation-wide system that serves as storehouse for all  Federal  govern-
         ment publications, as well as many state and local  documents.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOOKSTORES:
         Located throughout the U.S., the bookstores provide a wide selection
         of GPO materials for purchase, as well  as ordering  information for
         all  Federal publications.


INFORMATION CENTERS AT MAJOR RESEARCH LIBRARIES
         The centers provide thorough searches of the literature on a  given
         topic, usually for a fee.  One such center is the Georgia Tech
         Information Exhange Center.


LIBRARIES OF AGENCIES OR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT:
         Although quality of the collections may vary, many  agencies or
         organizations involved with a project may provide additional  infor-
         mation.  Most Federal agencies do have a library system, as with
         EPA, TVA, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey.


UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE LIBRARIES:
         The reference librarians at large academic libraries, especially
         those located near the area affected by the EIS, are available to
         explain their library's collection.  Especially good for socio-economic
         information.


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONAL OFFICE LIBRARIES:
         The regional libraries hold depository collections  of EPA reports,
         a substantial collection of state and local documents relating to
         environmental problems, especially within their regions, as well as
         an assemblage of supportive books and journals.

-------
                                                                   Appendix 2
                   E.I.S.  RELATED PUBLICATIONS AND SERVICES


CHEMICAL REGULATIONS REPORT (BNA):
         Weekly review of activities affecting chemical  manufacturers and
         users, including coverage  of Federal  and state  laws and regulations

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASSOCIATIONS (Gale  Research Co.):
         Detailed information including location, size,  staff,  objectives,  and
         telephone numbers of commercial,  scientific,  engineering,  agricultural,
         governmental, legal, military, and other organizations.  Includes
         alphabetical and key word  indices.

ENERGY USERS REPORT (BNA):
         Weekly report covering energy policy, technology,  and  supply.   Includes
         coverage of energy laws and regulations, energy statistics,  and a  direc-
         tory of energy-related departments and organizations.

ENVIRONMENT REPORTER (BNA):
         Weekly review of pollution control and related  environmental management
         problems, including coverage of Federal  and state  environmental legis-
         lation, laws, and regulations.

EPA REPORTS BIBLIOGRAPHY (NTIS):
         Abstracts and indices of EPA reports.  Provides ordering information
         for purchasing reports through NTIS.

FINDING FACTS FAST, by Alden Todd (William Morrow Co., 1972):
         Text explains research methodology, library use, ideas for outside-
         the-library investigation  to help researchers find out what they want
         to know immediately.

GOVERNMENT REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INDEX (NTIS):
         Biweekly summary and index of government research.  Indexes  cummulate
         annually.

KEY TO E.I.S. (Information Resources Press):
         Monthly index and abstracts to E.I.S., including access by subject,
         Agencies involved, geographic areas affected, laws and court deci-
         sions relating to E.I.S.  The Impact Statements are also available
         on microfiche.

OBERS PROJECTIONS (U.S. Water Resources Council):
         Five volume set including  historical  and projected data for economic
         activity in the U.S.  Organized by states, water resources regions,
         and Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Areas.  Includes  one volume
         summary and explanation of methodology.

-------
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS:
         Several journals of professional  organizations contain information
         relevant to E.I.S. research, such as 102 MONITOR (CEQ), JOURNAL OF
         AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION, JOURNAL OF WATER POLLUTION CON-
         TROL FEDERATION.

PROJECTIONS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN (STATE). SERIES E, POPULATION (Corps or Engineers)
         Documents providing historical  and projected demographic and economic
         data for each of the nine states  in the Southeast.   One volume summary
         of projections for the Southeastern states is also  available.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAMS AND REGULATIONS (Environmental Information Center):
         Collection of laws, rules, and  regulations of environmental impor-
         tance for all 50 states.   (Available at EPA Region  IV Library in
         microfiche.)

                       COMPUTERIZED LITERATURE SEARCHES

NTISearch (NTIS):
         Individual computer searches of entire NTIS Bibliographic Data file
         covering Federally sponsored research projects since 1964.  Fees for
         searches begin at $100.

AIR POLLUTION TECHNOLOGICAL INFORMATION  CENTER (APTIC) SEARCHES (EPA):
         Literatrue searches of air pollution control articles through the EPA
         Library at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.   Free to EPA
         personnel, current contractors  and grantees of EPA  when endorsed by
         their EPA project officer, state  and local governmental agencies, non-
         profit environmental and citizens groups.

                                   ABSTRACTS

ENERGY INDEX (EIC):
         Annual guide to literature in energy.  Includes sections covering
         year's events, key legislation, conferences, books, films, and
         statistics relating to energy.

ENVIRONMENT INDEX (EIC):
         Annual index covering 21 subject  catagories of environmental concern.
         Indexes journals, newspapers, government documents, and conferences.
         Includes listing of pollution control officials and a chronology of
         the year's events of environmental importance.

SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS (Water  Resources 0-ffice,  Interior Dept.):
         Semi-monthly publication abstracting current and earlier monographs,
         journals, reports, and other publications dealing with water-related
         aspects of the sciences,  engineering, and the law.   Also includes
         coverage of conservation, control, use and management of water.

-------
                                                          Appendix 3
                      REGION IV LIBRARY
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Librarian:  Carolyn Mitchell, MLS
Assistant Librarian: Patricia Rosencranz, MLS

The Region IV Library was established in May, 1973.   Some
of the material incorporated into the collection came from
the pre-EPA offices of the Public Health Service and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.

The collection presently consists of 1500, books, 10,000
cataloged documents, 270 journal and newsletter  subscriptions,
and 100,000 reports on microfiche.

The subject areas of the collection are water quality, water
supply, wastewater treatment, air pollution, solid waste management,
noise pollution, toxic substances and hazardous  materials, land
use, environmental law, and Southeastern U.S. ecology.

Special collections include EPA reports, Air Pollution
Technical Information Center (APTIC) reports, Environmental
Impact Statements on microfiche, state environmental laws
and regulations on microfiche, and Federal Women's Program
materials.

The Library provides the Region IV staff with reference,
circulation, inter!ibrary loan and current awareness services.
Assistance is also provided to the general public.

-------
                                                                                                  Appendix 4
                                                                       £• - 07 5: i>  C3 $
ist proble
l impac
                                                                               O
                                                                            li
                                                                            ro  o
                                                                       ii ra x  -• cn
                                                                   E    CD
s they encountered in ab
statements. Following a
                                                                          3 - 5
ac
om
                                                                   =-    CD ^
                                                                          D
                                                                        O CQ
                                                                        """ a>

                                                                        fa
                                                                       •o 5
                                                                        ~  Q.
                                                                          CD
                                                                        > ~
                                                                        co 0
                                                                        •a 3
                                                                        01 o
                                                                        — 3
                                                                        O C.


                                                                        II

                                                                        as

                                                                        !.:§.
                                                                        ^ ^
                                                                        ? °
                                                                        CD cn
                                                                        [n S
                                                                        CO O
                                                                        •D 3
                                                                        2.3
                                                                        CD ~
                                                                        01 5
                                                                        2. o
                                                                        § o
                                                                        01
arc orgnm
arc lo nbsl
ub
cd
rnct
                                                                                     5- g
                                                                                     &I
                                                                                     § 1
                                                                                     <" I
                                                                                     £1
                                                                                     a 01
                      f  =r
                      o  3

                      II
                                                                                    = - = =  5L o
antive
relati
nnd inde
pa
ion
a
                                                                    
      TO
    fD  3-
       VO
2  S1
3  ">
3  O

g  §
   O
t< 3
01  (V
O  CO
   o

   S
rt n
   m
   01
 -s  v
re  n
~  to
rt 01
ce  cn
     
-------
                                                                         Appendix 5
°. s
— B
3" "
nstitutionalize appropriate arrangements whereby the three steps
3 EIS process — information collection, analysis, and decision

CO
CO
(3 f
«
ET
CD
and local governments.
CEQ should encourage federal agencies to establish cooperative
:ments with state and local governments and regional agencies


gco
£§
n co
rnments to use efficient techniques that would integrate EISS into
roject planning documents and provide technical assistance to

.a!
CD Q.
3 for state environmental policy acts to eliminate duplicative
al and state environmental policy act requirements.
CEO should encourage federal agencies to assist state and local

to
CEO should prepare model legislation to establish minimum stan-

?!
ining lead agency or joint agency responsibilities for EIS prepara-

0) CJ
5; t/>
CD NJ in
n • c
re coordination among federal agencies in EIS preparation.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) should work with the
;ted federal agencies to establish interagency agreement for de-


a _.
CD •
To the extent permitted by law, the President should require all
ral agencies to develop consistent regulations and definitions and

r^Scro.~ — co =• -a ooo:^ = c/>=-(/)fl<— ~r>— '
«§£3i*i.tS-?5oSiSlSgSffii!
s space in the June 1977 issue of EIS was given to a guest editon'a!
lling with ideas tor improving environmental impact statements
s). The topics discussed included the need for greater uniformity
1 consistency among agencies in determining when and how impact
ements should be prepared, the elimination of redundancies in
iact statements, streamlining of the intra-agency review process,
mentation ol environmental assessments, preceding or backing up
act slnlements wild "families" ol reports covering discreet technical
is so ns to fncilitnle Ihe technical review process, nnd development
encral criteria or guidelines lor stale or local authorities in order to
unatc the need for detailed lederal agency participation in every
ironmental action.
i many respects, the suggestions advanced in our guest editorial
jllel in purpose and kind the recommendations advanced in the
rim report of the Commission on Federal Paperwork dealing with
ironmental impact statements (February 1977). The report contains
•ecommendations. Backed up by detailed analyses and justifica-
s, these recommendations address themselves not only to the
inution of the paperwork burdens of impact statement preparation .
also to their consistency, responsiveness to NEPA, redundancies
m and among statements, and olher mailers of significant import.
14 recommendations (somewhat abbreviated) are as follows:


i
COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK:
Report on Environmental Impact Statements
B
smmm
5
£>
n
-3
caw
"9
^3
m
y*
tsam
££%
W9

^j
CD
printed with permission of copyright owner
PI
H
to
Key to Environmental Impact Statements, Vo!
*— •
M
»
n
o
T3
>*!
'right, 1977, Information Resources Press






additional copies, we were informed that printing was being dela;
the unavailability of biodegradable paper. Absit omen.
^.
CO
o
cr
•<



compresses into 60 pages suggested solutions to most of the
problems which plague the EIS process. It is well worth re
Unfortunately, availability may pose some problems. When we asl
» Q. 3
Q. -• ?
:t 3 »
O CO O




Consistent with the basic mandate of the commission, the
CO
T3
o
—



9. CEO should amend its guidelines to permit circulation of a
mary" instead of a complete EIS document, when the only purpose
distribution is to meet disclosure requirements of NEPA
10. CEQ should amend its guidelines to recognize and promote
an "integrated environmental assessment/environmental impact
ment" process
11. CEQ should encourage federal agencies to use areawic
instead of preparing site-specific EISS for related actions
12. CEQ should encourage development and use of environ
resource inventories to avoid duplication of base-line data for
These should consolidate and coordinate data on, for exampi
ology, hydrology, botany, and zoology by federal region
13. CEQ should provide guidance to support a concept of
accepted environmental resource inventories by reference in
instead of including all inventory information.
14. CEQ should assume responsibility for identifying, evaluatir
disseminating efficiency techniques to comply with NEPA.
" So .-SI * .g £-'
Co ~ (O m 3 m H.CD — rr
3 [03 CDcnST C/) CDo 3~-3
Q. u> CO i • SL w i 2. CD ?



•g.
CO
3
erf
o
0
3_
ro"
3_






a. incorporates all elements of an EIS, in compliance with app
federal agency regulations, and
b involves federal agency participation in and certification
2. o
d>
5 2
CD CD



equivalent of an EIS if it






OD
n
m
O
w
3-
O
C
Q.
CO
CD
3
Q.
uy
(O
c
5.
CD_
5
CD
(A
O
CD
(Q
CO
3.
CO
•o
o
CD'
o
•o
CO
3
CO
vt
5
CD



license, or loan to state or local governments.






7. CEQ should work with federal agencies to recognize and p
integration of the draft EISS into initial project planning docu
especially when the major federal action is a grant, lease, |
1I|
3 a o
-- y n



mental requirements.






requirements of NEPA and other environmental statutes to plan
public works project. If possible, the handbook should also incoi
provisions for permit, lease, and license applicants to meet e
3-65
- o 5
o tu "°
I CD CO



making — are coordinated among the various levels of gove
affected by tne proposed project.
6. CEQ, in cooperation with the Federal Regional Councils,
prepare for each region an environmental handbook which rela
CD ". 3
W rT 3
5F_ §
CD Q. 2.
o
~J

-------
                  Streamlining

             the  EIS process
      Preparing environmental impact statements is often a
        costly, time-consuming, duplicative task. A noted
     information systems expert suggests ways to improve it
  What have  the  forthcoming  1980
Winter Olympic Games, electric power
stations, and human heart pacemakers in
common? Pursuant to the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA), they, like
many other projects and installations,
require an environmental impact state-
ment (EIS). "A heart pacemaker, too?"
someone asks incredulously. "Yes, if it is
Plutonium powered," you answer. "Now
where would I find an EIS on heart pace-
makers?" is the next question you hear.
The same question is asked for  many
other EISs.
  Where,  indeed? Until very recently,
EISs were essentially "fugitive literature."
Abstracts and indexes did not exist in
reference works such as Chemical Ab-
stracts, Engineering Index, Environmental
Abstracts, or similar publications. "EISs
were not  'findable' like, say, works on
bridge building. Once in a while an odd
one could turn up, but you can't count on
it," Saul Herner, president of Herner and
Company  (Washington,   D.C.),   told
ES&T.

Meets a need
  Thus, it was evident that a real need for
a way to locate EISs existed, and Herner
resolved to meet it. The effort began in
1975 and came to fruition with the first
issue in January of this year of EIS: Key to
Environmental  Impact  Statements, a
monthly publication. Basically, EIS pro-
vides indexes to subjects involved in the
statements it covers, geographical areas
affected by proposed actions, and the
agency/organization responsible for each
statement. Next, abstracts, in readily un-
derstandable language, of draft and final
EISs are presented, along with descriptive
material and a location guide. There is
also a monthly editorial, highlighting the
contents of  each  EIS issue, and dis-
cussing topical environmental items.
                Appendix  6

  EISs from before this year are not left
out of Herner's activities. A division. In-
formation Resources Press (IRP), which
publishes EIS, is preparing abstracts of all
of the approximately 4500 final EISs that
appeared  since  NEPA  (1969-1976).
These will be available in bound volumes,
microfiche, and  computer-searchable
tapes. As of press time, IRP had about 30
commitments for this past EIS service, as
well as approximately 600 subscriptions
to EIS. The 1969-1976 compilation ser-
vice  will cost a  client  approximately
$10 000; annual subscriptions to EIS are
$200. Of the 100 employees at Herner, 10
work full time on the compilation service
and EIS.
  Saul Herner gave ES&T am example of
the benefit that easy location of an EIS
might confer. Suppose there is a power
plant in northern New Mexico, for which
an EIS was written. Now, plans are made
to build another one in a nearby geo-
graphically and climatologically similar
area of southern Colorado. If an assess-
ment and  EIS  must  be  done  from
"scratch," one must figure on the efforts
and expenses of some 3-6 man-months
of well-paid experts' work; indeed, that is
what usually happens.
  However, if the New Mexico EIS can be
found without a wild agency-to-agency
goosechase, some of the  information
there could well ease and shorten the task
of preparing the Colorado EIS.  For ex-
ample, some  of the required data  for
Colorado could be included by reference
to like information in the New Mexico
statement. This is one of the aims that EIS
and the service for past EISs is out to ac-
complish.

Improved control
  Streamlining the "findability" and  re-
trievability of EISs is one of IRP's goals;
another is to improve control over the EIS
process and over the assessment process
leading  to  statement preparation.  At
present, "control really begins after an EIS
952  Environmental Science & Technology

-------
                             is issued, at which time it is examined by
                             EPA for completeness and adherence to
                             NEPA requirements, and is announced by
                             the Council on Environmental Quality
                             (CEQ) in the Federal Register," Herner
                             told ES&T.
                               Herner believes that EIS management
                             control and public awareness should start
                             at the onset of environmental assessment
                             activity. Thus, for example, if an impact
                             is very negative, that fact should soon be
                             apparent,  and  the  project could  be
                             dropped before much money is spent on
                             an EIS and other items. Also, the  EIS
                             preparation process could be standard-
                             ized  and improved,  especially with re-
                             spect to cost and time, and elimination of
                             much redundancy of similar statements.
                                         Saul Herner
                              "More effective controls are needed"

                             Herner suggests tighter control at  the
                             assessment,   preparation,  and   an-
                             nouncement steps, with reasonable al-
                             lowances  for  differences  between
                             projects  or products  and agency  re-
                             quirements. Indeed, IRP is planning to
                             work with a U.S. government agency to
                             find ways of establishing and optimizing
                             this control.
                               The requirement for preparing  as-
                             sessments  and EISs is here to stay.  But
                             the job can be  made more  standard,
                             simpler, less time-consuming, less costly,
                             and less duplicative.
                               Oh yes, about the curious EIS on heart
                             pacemakers—it  is described in  EIS,
                             February 1977, p 57. Or, for more detail,
                             the whole statement,  issued July 1976
                             (Final), can be found at the Office of Nu-
                             clear Material  Safety  and Safeguards,
                             Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wash-
                             ington, D.C., now a part of the new  De-
                             partment of Energy. It also can be  ob-
                             tained from IRP,  which sells microfiche
                             and paper copies of all impact statements
                             it covers.                         JJ

 Reprinted from ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 11, Page 952. October 1977
Copyright 1977 by the American Chemical  Society and reprinted by permission of the copyright owner

-------
                                                                   Appendix 7
                                              Barry Gilbert, Data Coordinator
                                              Air Programs Branch, Region IV
                                                     Atlanta, Georgia
                                              (FTS 257-2864; CML 404-881-2864)
                        STATE AIR QUALITY DATA CONTACTS
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
Mr. Ken Barrett, Air Quality Section, Division of Air
Pollution Control, Alabama Air Pollution Control Com-
mission, 645 South McDonouqh Street, Montgomery, Alabama
36104                 (205-834-6570)

Mr. Dick Arbes, Air Quality Section, Florida Department
of Environmental Regulations, 2562 Executive Center
Circle, East, Montgomery Building, Tallahassee, Florida
32301                 (904-844-8145)

Mr. William D. Estes, Chief, Air Quality Evaluation
Section, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, 535 Mi lam Avenue,
Atlanta, Georgia   30315      (404-656-4997)

Mr. Larry Teriot, Chief, Air Quality, West Frankfort
Office Complex, U.S. 127 South, Frankfort, Kentucky
40601                 (502-564-6798

Mr. D. D. Jones, Chief, Field Monitoring Section,
Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi Air
& Water Pollution Control Commission, Post Office
Box 827, Jackson, Mississippi    39205
(601-354-2550)

Mr. Glen Ross, Air Qualtiy Section, North Carolina
Department of Natural & Economic Resources, Post
Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina  27611
(919-758-4740)

Mr. Gene Slice, Bureau of Air Quality Control, South
Carolina Department of Health & Environmental  Control
2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina   29201
(803-758-5581)

Mr. Robert Foster, Chief, Technical Services,  Tennessee
Department of Public Health, 256 Capitol Hill  Building,
301 Seventh Avenue, North, Nashville, Tennessee  37219
(615-741-3651)

-------
              REGION IV STATE CONTACTS - AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY

For Information on obtaining available state reports, please contact the
appropriate person in each state.
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH  CAROLINA
 TENNESSEE
Dick McNider
Division of Air Pollution Control  Commission,  645
South McDonough Street, Montgomery, AL   36104

Bob lacampo
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2562 Executive Circle East, Montgomery
Building, Tallahassee, FL   32301

Jim Mull ins
Air Protection Branch, Environmental Protection
Division, Georgia Department of Natural  Resources,
270 Washington Street, SW, Atlanta, GA    30303

Edd Frazier
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, West Frankfort Office
Complex, U.S. 127, S, Frankfort, KY   40601

Earl Lemaster
Division of Air Pollution Control, Mississippi
Air and Water Pollution Control Commission,
P.O. Box 827, Jackson, MS   39205

Tom Allen
Air Quality Section, North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources, P.O.  Box
27687, Jackson, MS    39205

Jerry Chalmers
Bureau of Air Quality Control, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Protection
2600 Bull St., Columbia, SC   29201

Stan Lodl
Tennessee Department of Public Health
265 Capitol Hill Building, 301 Seventh
Ave., N, Nashville, TN   37219

-------
          Appendix 8
storet
EPA's
Computerized
Water Quality
Data Base
the right
answer
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Washington, D. C.

-------
storet
provides
water
quality data
           on the
             right
   parameters
Some 1800 unique water quality parameters are defined within «toi«t Ap-
proximately 80% of the 40 million individual observations available
within the system pertain to approximately 200 of these pa-
rameters which are grouped into the general cate-
gories shown in the table to the right A single
observation represents a measurement
of a single parameter at a spe-
cific location, or station,
at a specific point
in time.
.5
                                                                                  .3
                                                                                  .a
                                                                                   9
            at the
             right
         stations
storet contains data on samples taken from
more than 200,000 unique collection points
located on essentially all of the Nation's rivers,
lakes, streams, and other waterways. The shadings
of the map reflect the relative concentrations of
sampling and monitoring stations. The blow-up
of the Saginaw River Basin shows its drainage
area and the specific locations of sampling points.

-------
                           A river basin is the area drained by a single river
                           and its tributaries. A water quality management
                           basin plan is a management document that iden-
                           tifies me water quality problems of a particular
                           basin, or portion of a basin, and sets forth an
                           effective remedial program to alleviate those
                           problems. Overall basin needs and priorities are
                           assessed, actions scheduled, and the necessary
                           coordination with concerned organizations
                           planned.
        basin
planning
The needs and priorities are based largely upon
water quality data and the analysis of this data.
For example, fecal coliform bacteria is a common
indicator of pollution problems in areas affected
by major municipal/industrial activity. A plot of
coliform along a stretch of a river can quickly
ascertain the presence of a bacterial source and
the extent of a pollution problem.
The development of an effective planning proc-
ess is crucial to effective water quality manage-
ment. This is particularly true for river basin
planning as required under various sections of
PL 92-500. River basin plans are primarily the
responsibility of the states, and the law delineates
the rather extensive amount of information that
must be provided.
 research
In order to achieve our national objective of
having water that is clean enough both for recre-
ational activity and for the protection of fish and
wildlife, numerous research and development
efforts have been initiated to acquire a thorough
understanding of the complex and variable bio-
logical systems that characterize our waterways.
Research tells us what a specific level of a specific
pollutant does to humans, animals, and crops. It
establishes thresholds at which we might expect
adverse effects from environmental pollutants,
alone or in combination. (And from these
thresholds, criteria for water quality standards can
be established.) It provides  the basic scientific
knowledge we need to safeguard the public health
and to balance the benefits of a specific product
against its environmental risks

A representative effort is that of the EPA Grosse
lie Laboratory's Research Program to improve the
water quality of the Great Lakes. This Lab is in-
volved with a number of other agencies in devel-
oping the scientific information needed to assess
the effectiveness of implemented programs on
Great Lakes water quality, to form the basis for
needed control actions, and to develop the scien-
tific information needed to support the Canadian/
U. S Agreement for the Great Lakes. Over a
dozen U. S. and Canadian agencies, universities,
and joint commissions are participating in this
extensive program launched in  1972.

Since this is an on-going, international program
involving both water quality management and
research, it is essential that all data gathered on the
water quality of the Great Lakes be readily accessi-
ble by all investigators. Accordingly, all participants
are required to enter all collected data into storet,
thereby greatly expediting the use and analysis of
the information through sharing of data. This sig-
nificant, multi-organizational research program not
only illustrates the value of storet in research-
oriented endeavors, but also it demonstrates how
the use of an accepted central system can foster
cooperation among a group of organizations
sharing common interests.
                                                CHLOROPHYLL A  IN LAKE  ONTARIO
                                                           TWO PERSPECTIVE VIEWS

-------
        monitoring
& surveillance
The data in storet originates from samples taken
as part of individual monitoring programs con-
ducted by the states and other organizations
Several objectives of these monitonng efforts are
to identify and assess quantitatively the magnitude
of existing and potential water pollution problems,
and to detect any trends or changes over a period
of time Reports such as the trend plots shown
here, which show presence of phosphates and
ammonia as a function of time, vividly point out
where problems do and do not exist
                   npdes
                 permit
            program
Far-reaching goals were established by PL 92-500:
By 1983, water clean enough for swimming,
boating, and protection of fish, shellfish, and wild-
life; and by 1985, no discharges whatsoever of
pollutants into the Nation's waters! To achieve
these ambitious but essential goals, the law estab-
lished a national permit program, known as
NPDES-the National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System, to control the discharge of pol-
lutants into any waterway. This program is the
mechanism for insuring that effluent limits are
met, that the necessary technology is applied, and
that all requirements of the 1972 law for con-
trolling discharges and complying with water
quality standards are met on schedule. Permits
are to be granted to individual dischargers only
after they show that their effluents will not con-
taminate a waterway in excess of established water
quality standards, or will not lower its existing
quality.
The law allows polluters time to improve facil-
ities, but provides thai corrective programs must
meet the "best practicable" and "best available"
standards of water pollution control technology
by 1977 and 1983 respectively.

                                                                                         EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS REPORT

-------
 progress
reporting
Under Section 305(b) of PL 92-500, states are
required to submit annual reports to EPA on
sources of pollution —their nature, extent, recom-
mendations for control, and the cost of these
controls  (An excerpt from the State of Michigan's
305(b) report is shown below ) As practices be-
come more sophisticated,  these reports should
reflect the effects of these  sources on the pollu-
tion of groundwaters, and provide an inventory of
wells which can be used to determine ground-
water quality within a state's jurisdiction
A new activated sewage treatment plant was built
on Fountain Creek below Colorado Springs in
late 1972. The data in storct collected prior and
subsequent to the implementation of the new
plant were compared The number of violations
for dissolved oxygen had dropped from 53% to
7%, for dissolved solids from 59% to 33%, for
BOD from 85% to 73%, and for fecal coliform
from 89% to 58% Similar improvement occurred
and was demonstrated when a sewage  treatment
plant was built in the Fargo, North Dakota area

These examples show the applicability of using
the data in storct to demonstrate progress either
from an over-all point of view or from the view-
point of a single effort
                                                                                 100.

                                                                                 30,
                                                                                STN • 500046
                                                                                     THE i/Aff OF fffST FIT SHOUS IMPROVING UATE/f DU
                                                                                     WER TWE — AS MEASURES Sr THE HATER QUALITY 1HOEX
                                                                                            TIME OF DBSERVA1ION
                            Associated with specific water uses are the water
                            quality standards which must be met in order for
                            the water to be used for its intended purposes.
                            consistent with the 1983 goals of water quality
                            Once standards have been established by states
                            in accordance with national criteria, it is necessary
                            to monitor the effect of water pollution abatement
                            and control activities relative to those criteria A
                            number of storet report programs can be used,
                            such as the ones pictured below, to track the
                            progress  of water quality improvement efforts
                                                                                          WITH
                                                                                                VIOLATIONS UST
                                                                                                         VIOLATIONS
                                                                                                          SUMMARY

-------
                 toxic
    substances
Although many substances are potentially toxic to
aquatic life and other organisms when present in
sufficient concentration for a sufficient period of
time, the term toxic substances generally refers to
those substances which are dangerous even in
very low concentration Consequently, the 1977
arc! 1983 deadlines for limiting pollutant dis-
charges do not apply in the cases of these deadly
substances, such as mercury, cadmium, and
toxaphene Steps required to meet standards
established for toxic substances must be taken
quickly to protect the public health and welfare
To this end. EPA is empowered to restrain dis-
charges of any pollutants which present an im-
minent and substantial endangerment to the
health or livelihood of the public
All toxic substances foi which water quality anal-
yses have been performed are defined within
storet, and the system can easily accommodate
the inclusion of additional substances upon their
discovery Reports such as the one shown below
(from a Council on Environmental Quality report)
can be readily obtained from storet data to dem-
onstrate the presence or absence of toxic sub-
stances in any body of water for which data
are available
in  summary,
        the right
            answer
These pages have shown a number of uses made.
of storet, and its wealth of water quality data, by
a vanety of governmental agencies and other
organizations To further underscore the role that
storet can play to help you fulfill your water
quality assessment and management objectives,
consider the following additional answers that
storet can provide
   Help evaluate cost-effectiveness of previous-
   ly implemented water quality programs

   Help promote water quality programs by
   substantiating the effectiveness of other
   similar programs

   Help justify budget requests for water
   quality programs

   Help cut sampling costs by coordinating
   efforts with other organizations

   Provide a repository for your data collec-
   tion efforts

   Help identify where monitoring efforts are
   needed, thereby determining where funds
   need to be allocated

   Help design overall programs based upon
   the successes of others

   Help complete water quality management
   basin plans

   Help prepare fact sheets required by
   permit applications

  • Detect changes in pollutants that could
   change existing permits
                                                                                How can storet help you?

-------
      collected
      and  used
by the right
           people
— State Agencies
— Cities and Counties
— Interstate Commissions
— Water Quality Managers
— Environmental Planners
— Sanitary Engineers
- EPA Regional Offices
— EPA Laboratories
— Federal Agencies
— Canadian Agencies
— U. S. Territories
These individuals and organizations actively
participate in the collection, storage, retrieval, and
analysis of water quality data. All utilize storet
for these efforts, contributing to the quality and
quantity of the parameter observations described
on the opposite page. Several Federal agencies-
including the U. S. Forest Service, the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the U. S. Geological Survey, and the Tennessee
Valley Authority—complement the efforts of those
having specific geographical interests. Over 40
states, as well  as many other organizations, have
direct access to storet for both storage and
retrieval, thereby contributing significantly to the
timeliness of storet's data.
                and
    presented
 in the  right
        formats
 and  storet
       can help
                 you
The array of representative reports pictured here
exemplifies the versatility of storet and its water
quality data to help users prepare a myriad of
detailed, summary, or exception reports relative
to their specific areas or locations of interest. Data
reported can reflect the latest, most current infor-
mation available, or it can draw upon the histori-
cal depth of the data, going back as far as the
late '50s. Most users obtain their reports from
small portable computer terminals conveniently
located in or near their offices.
These two pages have presented an overview of
the data available within storet The inside
pages describe several examples of how various
users today utilize storet to achieve a variety
of objectives relating to water quality assessment
and management.

-------
                 epa
The Environmental Protection Agency was
created in 1970 to foster an integrated, coordi-
nated attack on environmental pollution in
cooperation with state and local governments EPA
endeavors to abate and control pollution system-
atically by proper integration of a variety of
research, monitoring, standard setting, and en-
forcement activities. Through Public Law 92-500,
EPA has the overall responsibility to provide water
that is clean enough both for recreational activity
and for the protection of fish and wildlife In-
herent in this charter is the requirement of main-
taining an information inventory concerning the
quality of the Nation's waters
          storet
storet is a computenzed data base utility main-
tained by EPA for the storage and retrieval of
parametric data relating to the quality of the
waterways of the United States The system was
conceived and initiated under the auspices and
administration of the Public Health Service in the
early 1960s Since its early days when storet
input and output was achieved via the mails, the
system has evolved into a comprehensive infor-
mation data base, accessible by hundreds of users
via computer terminals located throughout
the country.
      storet—
      the right
          answer
This publication was prepared to provide an over-
view of the content and capabilities of the storet
system, and to describe a number of uses made
of this information by those organizations con-
cerned and involved with the abatement and
control of water pollution within the United States.
       for  more
information
For further information on how storet can help
you fulfill your needs with respect to the collec-
tion, reporting, and analysis of water quality data,
contact your local storet representative, storet
User Assistance in Washington, D.C. (202-
426-7792) can give you names and phone
numbers.

-------
                        Appendix 9
INFORMATION
SERVICES
FOR
Business
Industry
Government
FROM THE
GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY

-------
            INFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTER

              PRICE GILBERT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
              GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
                   Atlanta, Georgia 30332

                  Telephone: (404) 894-4526
                    TWX: 810-751-8639
     SCHEDULE  OF

 SERVICES AND FEES
           INFORMATION SERVICES AVAILABLE
       BUSINESS, INDUSTRY,
       GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
 Reference/Bibliographic Services


 Literature Searching

     Retrospective or Current Manual Searching



     On-Line,  Interactive Computer Searching


 Verification of  Incomplete  or Incorrect Citations


 Interlibrary Loan

 Locating and Obtaining  Items not  in the Library


 Translations

     Search for Existing Translations

     Referral to  Translator

 Reproduction

     Photocopying/Microfilming

     Enlargements (from microtext)

     Microfiche Duplications

 Georgia Tech Library Microfiche  Catalog
     Basic Catalog plus  Supplements
$15.00 per hour
     (less than 1 hour-$10.00)
$15.00 per hour, plus copying cost
     (not to exceed 5 hours with-
     out further consultation)

Please inquire,,  Cost varies
     with data base.

$5.00-$10.00 per item depending
     on complexity

$5.00 per item

$5.00 per item plus cost to
     Library
$5.00 plus cost to Library

$5.00 minimum



$2.50 per item, plus 10
-------
                       Subject Strengths
                       ENGINEERING ** SCIENCE ** MANAGEMENT
Aerospace Engineering

Architecture

Architectural Engineering

Bioengineering

Biology

Building Construction

Ceramic Engineering

Chemical Engineering

Chemistry

City Planning

Civil Engineering

Communication Engineering

Computer Utilization

Crystallography
Electrical Engineering

Engineering Mechanics

Environmental Studies

Electronics

Geophysical Sciences

Industrial Design

Industrial Engineering

Industrial Management

Information Science

Management

Materials Technology

Mathematics

Mechanical Engineering

Metallurgy

Nuclear Engineering
Nuclear Science

Paper

Physics

Psychology

Public Health

Public Health Engineering

Sanitary Engineering

Safety Engineering

Systems Engineering

Textile Engineering

Textiles

Transportat ion

Wastes Engineering

Water Resources
                       Special  Materials
                       Collections
The Georgia Tech Library has extensive holdings of the following special materials:

    Abstracts * Bibliographies * Indexes
    Patents  (U.S. and Foreign)

    Standards and Specifications

    Technical Reports
      (U.S. Atomic Energy  Commission,
      National Aeronautics and Space
      Administration, Department of
      Defense, Housing and Urban
      Development, Rand Corporat ion,
      AD's, PB's, etc.)
              Maps * Atlases * Nautical Charts
                ^Deposit service  from U.S.G.S.,
                 Defense Mapping  Agency,  and
                 National Oceanic Service.)

              Government Documents
                (U.S. Government  Printing
                 Of f ice Depos itory.)

              Russian Serials

              Conference Proceedings and Symposia

              Industrial Catalogs and Directories

-------
            LITERATURE     SEARCHING

RETROSPECTIVE * CURRENT AWARENESS  *  SDI *  CUSTOM  * MANUAL * ON-LINE


    The Georgia Tech  Library provides literature search service using the
    most appropriate  tools available.  Our manual and on-line, computer-
    based searches combine the latest mechanical techniques with the
    personal touch of trained information personnel and subject specialisjts.


                           PRINTED SEARCHING TOOLS

    The library's resources include a comprehensive collection of abstracting
    and indexing journals and other bibliographic tools.  The disciplines;
    in science and technology are covered with considerable magnitude and
    depth.  The most  important abstracting and indexing tools in the social
    sciences,  humanities, and liberal arts are also available.


                   MACHINE SEARCHABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION

    Over 85 separate  data bases, described on the following pages, are
    accessible through on-line, interactive  computerized literature
    searching.  Most  of the data bases are subject oriented — some
    quite broad and others quite narrow in scope.  Others  are comprehensive
    in subject coverage but are limited by format of material covered,
    such as books, patents, dissertations, or government reports.  Some
    others are non-bibliographical data bases containing statistics and
    other information on industrial plants,  foundations, and research
    programs in progress.


                              WHICH TO CHOOSE?

    The proper sources and search strategy can best be determined by direct
    discussion between the searcher and the  requestor.  Whether or not a
    search should be  conducted on-line,  manually, or both  will depend on
    several variables: The general field, specific topic, interdisciplinary
    aspects of the topic, time period to be  covered, depth and comprehensiveness
    desired, time available in which to do the search, type of output
    desired, and the  amount of funds available for the search.


                              DOCUMENT DELIVERY

    After the literature search — if it is  necessary to obtain the book,
    article, report,  patent, or other document identified  in the search,
    the resources and services of the library are again important.  Most
    of the needed items will be in the library.  For those which are not,
    the Information Exchange Center in the library will try to obtain
    them for you or refer you to the proper  source.


    For more specific information, or to order a search, call James B. Dodd,
    Coordinator of Service to Business & Industry,  (404) 894-4526.

-------
                              S;
                             + - + +
i


^j g
i ^
6 |
S*i
i t
t :
g §
SB
K u.
tS iJ
o ^1





X
V
1
1
4J
4
U
M
U
tl
W
e

g H
i &
c/> 1
CD I
U
4 «M
•J «i^

||
"K
1g
!g
«l
v -^
£ u X ^5
e
l
%
,j
§ i « i
w *4 cj-s. Q >JP
S w M s; o C> w w >J
g 4 g P M M OJM S
•§ « * * *4 * *
cc
is:
 -« 5wO
M « u c ~* c ^
*J 3 C 4 JJ ft) CD
» 00 tfl « M 9 @ t_)
5 |5S E £ ^
i-* y o «H > 1
4 *O *4 -H CO
u c o- a M t5 co
•H * O O (^
O 4J £ JS L1-
r-j 60 U 4J x « ZZ
0 «5 C C C C * —
.C 3 4 •) I- « »s f/j
^
. £
1 i
1 . 1 £
O W U 4 ^>
•r4 C 4 03 *J O
4J >* ^4 J£ £ U 7n
C " 4 t- Z 4 ^^
.5-1 a a g
W U U O 4 Q •*«*.
.cn--> 4u tie
& H O tl -H ^
4 I*. *J *J C * ±S
o«- e oo 4^
4J y o a ^ v LjJ
4^-*4fOI X U 4«H (^
>HJJ4JUbO HV WO) ^»
*j n *9 LI « *j r-i c Q Z3
« M -H « c 4U 4 "-
4JUJJU4 9 tM
w *J 41 C C S
f4JC/lHOCki|4Jt-l4* — i OWBCv4M(BEE 34 ^
f» C <^ <^ T) pO *4 Z^d U>OO44CwV *O O. __^
n_e 4 x .c o "H LI D-JI uouussa-c-cuCv ^"
^.o'tfcljC 
C 4J £ 4
5 K o -o
0) 4 •* W
4 4 4 rH O
Li 4 V ,0 U
W -rl L, 7 V
Ss*f«
* 4 C BC
Jt £ -2 *O -3 -S

sissii


V) O
P to « o o
S « S < z d £ £ < 3 o  G TJ . M *-ij=4
»4 -H 4> L, O 4HO.O)
*J 4J M V 444
Vt 4 O W •-( > I- «
> •* 4 C 4 4 M.fi
•H u C V *> O
4-> 4 O U C *4 4
0 4J ft. 4) ,-4 4J
< W) W f-< § J3 «
« P -H T3
U 4J 4J L, LI A
lsss-, t!
S3S gS *«
O •

W W W 4J i-l
V

i
iMi20i
S < Z M 0
*
 (D
 C
W

I
O^iLSoS
                                                                                g    + + + s-
                                                                                £    ggS t!
 I
 c
o
        I
        4
         *> J
        & !
S
               34s
               •H -H *

               .885
Electrical Engl
Mechanical Engt

Electron Mark
                    £
                   MO
surg
^iiS-g
SS5ff
 4J {£

?°&Z
»4 U  X
w -H « 4 oa
- L, ^ « £
 U iH C *4
                      I

                     1
                     ill
             II
             •«*«
                              u
                             « e
                             4O
                           3-U

                           ""*u
                           ^4 >, C
                           4MV
                         v jt 3
                         WH*O*M
                         44CO
                             MV4443
                             4JUUUv*J
                                 uue.

                                 •*
                                 i.
                                 li
fe

ru
                                        M Li
                                        4 4
                                        4) ft)

                                        si
                                        x z

                                        V «
                                              p «
                                              in tn
                                             >*. S-. SC
                                  S£ u  &
                                  £„!,  5:
                                        3 U
                                        U <
                                        •H
                                        M .e
                                                     ^

                                                     4J  h
                                                     « O U
•o o
gff
eo u
^g
                                                           «
                                                         0 X (
                                                     .
                                                    irt 5 «Q
                                                    M U <
                                                          *
                                                        tfl -C < -t
                                                        >*4h!lt.HM
   =1
   !i
6SSS2.
•s-ss
^lil
                                                                   s  5
                                                            t' t? cj  -*
                                                            0X0  4
                                                                 p1 p;
                                                                 r-|-
i:
= £
«-« e
2j
5!
                                                                          > - 2 fi « 4 •
                                                                          ££&£££,
3  5^j



-C •» "? X
U 4J U U
  c ft, -^
*W t»  1-4
O 3 Q 
-------
On-line    Data   Bases
          SOURCES and RATES — Page 1'
            ( Revised August 1977)
NAME OF
DATA BASE
ACCOUNTANTS
a AGRICOLA
a AHL
a AIM/ARM
a APA
a APTIC
ART MODERN
ASFA
a ASI
BIOS IS PREVIEWS
a CAB ABSTRACTS
CAPC
CASIA
a CEC
CHEM CONDENSATES
CHEM CONDENSATES
CHEM NAME
a CIN
a CIS
CLATMS/CHEM
CLAIMS/CLASS
CLAIMS/GEM
a CMA/EMA
a COMPENBEX
CRECORD
CRIS
DISSABS
DMMS
a EDB
EIS-PLANTS
ENERGY
ENVTJtO BIB
a ENVTROLINE/ENERCYLINE
EPRI
a ERIC
F & S INDEXES
FDN DIRECTORY
FDN GRANTS
a FEDERAL INDEX
FSTA
CEOARCHTVE
SUBJECT COVERAGE
Accounting
Agriculture, Food, & Nutrition
American History & Life
Vocational Training
Psychology
Air Pollution
Modern Art Literature
Marine Biology & Limnology
Government Statistics
Life Sciences
Agriculture
t Chemical Patent Concordance
* Chemical Subject Headings
Exceptional Children
Chemistry
Chemistry
t Chemistry — Registry Numbers
Chemical Industry Notes
Congressional Publications
Chemical Patents
t Patent Classifications
Non-chemical Patents
Chemical & Equipment Markets
Engineering
Congressional Raoord
# Agriculture Research Projects
Comprehensive university Research
t Dod Contract Awards
ERDA Energy Research Abstracts
t Industrial Plants

Environmental Studies
Environmental Science
t Electric Utility Research
Education
Business Research & Forecasting
# Philanthropic Organizations
t Philanthropic Grants
National Policy & Federal Planning
Food & Science Technology
Earth Sciences
INITIAL
COVERAGE
DATE
1974
1970
1955
1967-1976
1967
1970
1974
1975
1974
1972
1973
1972
1973
1966
1970-1976
1977
1973
1974
1970
1950

1970
1972
1970
l97f
1974
1861
1975
1976
Current

1973
1971
Current
1966
1972
Current
1973
1977
1969
1969
LOCKHEED
COST PER
MACHINE HOUR

$ 30.00
$ 70.00
$ 30.00
$ 55.00
$ 40.00
$ 65.00
$ 40.00

$ 50.00
$ 70.00
$ 50.00
$ 65.00
$ 30.00
$ 40.00
$ 50.00
$ 65.00
$ 95.00

$155.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 70.00

$ 45.00
$ 60.00
$ 95.00

$ 95.00

$ 65.00
$ 95.00

$ 30.00
$ 95.00
$ 65.00
$ 65.00
$ 95.00
$ 70.00
n.a.
LOCKHEED SVC OR OTHER SDC OR OTHER
OFF-LINE COST PER OFF-LINE
COST/HIT MACHINE HOUR COST/HIT
$ 73.00 $ .10
$ .05 $ 43.00 $ .06
$ .15
$ .10
$ .10
$ .10
$ .15
$ .10
$ 108.00 $ .25
$ .10 $ 68.00 $ .10
$ .15
$ .08
$ .12
$ .10
$ .08 $ 68.00 $ .12
$ .16
$ .12
$ .20 $ 78.00 $ .10
$ 108.00 $ .25
$ .10
$ .10
$ .10
$ .20
$ .10 $ 73.00 $ .10
$ 88.00 $ .15
$ .10
$ .12 $ 63.00 $ .12
$ .25
.
$ .50

$ .15
$ .20 $ 93.00 $ .20
$ SO.OOu $ .20
$ .10 $ 43.00 $ .08
$ .20
$ .30
$ .30
$ .20
$ .15

NOTES;
  • • Printout includes abstracts
  c • Source: Control Data Tcchnotec
  a • Source: ERDA
 n • New York Tines Information Bank
 * " Source: IISDOT through Datelle Columbus Laboratories
 ti • Source; Klcctrlc Utility Research Institute
n.a.M Prlcq not yut determined
# - Non-blbllop.raphlc data base
* - Data base includes results of
   thorough retronpoctlve senrchtng
   In addition to current materials

-------
On-line   Data  Bases
       SOURCES and RATES -- Page 2
        < Revised August 1977)
NAME OF
DATA BASE
GEOREF
a GRANTS
* HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS
* INFORM/ABI
* INSFEC - A
a INSFEC - B & C
ISMEC
• LLBA
LIBCON
LISA
MANCON
METADEX
• MGA
NCCAN
NICEH
NRC
• NTIS
• NYTTB
• OCEANIC ABSTRACTS
FAIS
PAPERCHEM
P/E NEWS
PHI
POLLUTION
PTS TNT'L STATISTICS-A
PTS INT'L STATISTICS-B
PTS U.S. STATISTICS-A
PTS U.S. STATISTICS-B
PTS U.S. STATISTICS-C
SUBJECT COVERAGE
Earth Sciences
Grant Programs
History
Business & Management
Physics
Electronics, Computers, & Control
INITIAL
COVERAGE
DATE
1967
Currant
1960
1971
1969
1969
Mechanical Engineering & Eng. Management 1973
Speech Pathology
Library of Congress Cataloging
Library & Information Sciences
Management
Metals & Metallurgy
Meteorology, Geoastrophyslcs
Child Abuse & Neglect
Non-print Educational Materials
# National Referral Center
Government Res. & Development
Gen. Newspapers & Magazines
Oceans and Seas
Public Affairs
Paper Chemistry
Petroleum/ Energy Business News
Pharmaceutical News
Pollution
International Statistical Abstracts
International Annual Time Series
U.S. Statistical Abstracts
U.S. Annual Time Series
U.S. Regional Time Series
RECON - ERDA (See separate listing of 15 data bases relating
SAE ABSTRACTS
SCISEARCH
• SOCABS
"a SOCIAL SCISEARCH
SPIN
SSIE
TECHNOTEC
TITUS
IRIS - A
TRIS - B
TULSA
• WAA
WPI
WRA
Automotive Engineering
Science & Engineering Citations
Sociology
Social Sciences Citations
Physics
* Research In Progress
t Technology Exchange Service
Textile Engineering
* Transportation Work In Progress
Transportation Literature
Petroleum Exploration & Production
Aluminum
Patent, World-Wide
Water Resources
1965
1970
1969
1974
1966
1972

1964
Current
1964
1969
1964
1976
1969
1975
1976
1970
1972
1972
1972
1972
1972
to energy and
1965
1974
1963
1972
1975
FY-1975
Current
1970
1967
1967
1965
1968
1963
1968
LOCKHEED LOCKHEED SDC OR OTHER SDC OR OTHER
COST PER OFF-LINE COST PER OFF-LINE
MACHINE HOUR COST/HIT MACHINE HOUR COST/HIT


$ 70.00
$ 70.00
$ 50.00
$ 50.00
$ 67.00
$ 60.00

n.a.

$ 85.00
$ 55.00
n.a.
$ 75.00

$ 40.00

$ 60.00
$ 65.00


$ 70.00
$ 70.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
$ 95.00
environmental

$ 75.00
$ 60.00
$ 75.00
n.a.






$ 55.00


$ 83.00 $ .20
$ 68.00 $ .35
$ .15
$ .10 $ 73.00 $ .10
$ .10
$ .10
$ .12
$ .15
$128.00 $ .25
n.a. $ 58.00 $ .15
$ 73.00 $ .10
$ .12
$ .10
n.a.
$ .20
e
$ .10 $ 53.00 $ .08
$ 90.00n $ .30
$ .10
$ .15
$ 88.00 $ .10
$123.00 $ .11
$ .15 $ 73.00 $ .15
$ .15 $ 73.00 $ .15
$ .20
$ .20
$ .20
$ .20
$ .20
problems)
$ 88.00 $ .15
$ .10
$ .15
$ .10

$118.00 $ .25
$ 70.00c $ .06
n.a. n.a.
$ 56.00t $ .10
$ S6.00t $ .10
$133.00 $ .50
$ .10
$ 98.00 $ .12
•

-------
                                    ON-LINE    COMPUTER
                                      LITERATURE    AND
                                      PATENT   SEARCHING
Mrs.  Jackie Marvin at computer terminal.
 The acquisition of the Texas  Instruments Silent 700 remote terminal has added
 a new dimension to the literature searching capabilities of the Information Ex-
 change Center.  Over 85 computerized data bases can be searched on-line.

 The data bases cover all areas of science and engineering.  Other subjects and
 materials covered are education, government statistics, congressional publica-
 tions, social sciences, management,  and business forecasting.  Fees for using
 the data bases vary from $10.00 per  hour to $150.00 per hour.  Most searches
 can be done in 10-15 minutes, so the costs are quite reasonable.

 Most of the data bases are by-products of the standard printed abstracting and
 indexing publications, such as Chemical Abstracts. Engineering Index, Psycho-
 logical Abstracts, Predicasts, Social Science Citation Index, Research in Edu-
 cation, and Uniterm Index _to  U.S. Chemical Patents.  Besides being much quicker,
 the computerized on-line searching can be performed at much less cost than a
 manual search of the same material.   Results can be printed out on-line, if
 desired.

 To illustrate with a specific case,  we recently did a search to identify an
 expired patent for a specific chemical assigned to a large international chem-
 ical firm.  The data base contained  over 4500 patents assigned to that firm.
 By restricting the search further by entering a few key words and appropriate
 patent class and subclass information, the number of patents was reduced to 85.
 We had the information about  these patents printed off-line and mailed to us.
 When we received the print-out three days later, we quickly identified the
 specific patent of interest to the client.  Although we were using the most
 expensive data base available, we were on-line only 7 minutes, and the total
 cost to the client was under  $45.00. To scan those 4500 patents manually would
 have required at least 150 manhours.

-------
   Patent    Services
 Translation    Services
The library's collection of U.S. patents
is complete from 1946,  with a  scattered
collection of earlier patents.  The
Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent
Office is complete from its beginning.
The library also owns all other patent
searching aids issued by the U.S.
Patent Office.

For foreign patents, the library has
abstracts of the patents issued by
all the major industrial countries of
the world.  An airmail  coupon  service
is used to obtain the complete texts
of foreign patents as needed.

Patents are an important part  of the
technical literature, and in many
fields they are covered routinely
by the major indexing and abstracting
publications right along with  the
periodical and book literature.

For the inventor the library offers a
limited patent searching service.  We
will assist you in getting the services
that are available to you directly from
the U.S. Patent Office.   We will help
you use the tools that  are available
for conducting your own preliminary
patent search.  We will conduct a
preliminary screening of patents
in appropriately designated subject
classes and subclasses,  and we will
provide you with a list of agents
and attorneys who are licensed to
practice before the U.S. Patent Office.

For other patent users  we have the
resources to search U.S. patents by
patentee, corporate assignee,  by subject
class and subclass, and by keywords.  There
are some options for on-line computer
patent searching instead of time-consuming
manual searching.
Accurate word-for-word  translations of
technical and scientific literature can
be expensive.  Rates  vary  from $.02 per
word to $.05+ per word, depending upon
the language and technical difficulty
of the subject matter.

Opportunities for cost  savings.

It is quite possible  that  the item of
your interest may have  already been translated
into English.  Special  libraries throughout
the U.S. and Great Britain share their
translations through  a  pool.  Copies of
existing translations are  available at a
fraction of the cost  of having the article
translated again.

Patent equivalency offers  another possible
alternative to the word-for-word translation
of some foreign patents.   Frequently companies
will wish to protect  their patent rights in
several countries. An  invention that is
patented in France or Germany or Japan may
also be patented in the U.S., Great Britain,
Canada, or some other English speaking country.
Patent concordances can be searched to locate
such equivalents.

Should these cost-saving efforts fail,
the item can still be sent to a competent
translator.  In locating a translator,
we try to match not only the language skills
but the technical background as well.

-------
        STANDARDS &  SPECIFICATIONS  !!!

              VENDOR  CATALOGS  !!!

ARE  THESE  PROBLEM MATERIALS FOR  YOUR COMPANY?
       The technical  information resources of the Georgia Tech Library have been enhanced
       by the recent  addition  of the VSMF microfilm service.

       VSMF stands for Visual  Search Microfilm JVLles and consists of three interrelated
       files:

                Vendor  Catalogs
                Standards  and Specifications
                Product Design File

       The Vendor  Catalog sections contain the unedited contents of the catalogs of over
       40,000 U.S. manufacturers.

       The Standards  and Specifications  files contain military standards and specifications,
       federal specifications  and standards, Qualified Products List, and Joint Army-Navy
       Standards.   Also  included are the standards, specifications, recommended practices,
       codes, regulations,  test methods, etc. of the American National Standards Institute,
       American Society  for Testing and  Materials, Society of Automotive Engineers,
       Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Society of Mechanical
       Engineers,  National  Electrical Manufacturers Association, and several other such
       organizations.  The  government standards and specifications files are updated
       every fifteen  days with complete  records of revisions, replacements, changes,
       etc.  The industry standards are  updated every 60 days.

       The Product Design File is compiled by cutting apart the manufacturers' catalogs
       end refiling (and microfilming) the pages so that similar products from different
       vendors are in juxtaposition on the microfilm roll.

       Tying these files together is a set of elaborate, but easily usable, indexes.
       For instance,  the Combined Product Index will lead you not only to a list of companies
       which manufacture identical or very similar products, but it will also indicate
       which industrial  and governmental standards or specifications apply to that product.
       Other indexes  will enable you to  identify the manufacturers of discrete semi-
       conductors  or  printed circuits to fit the specific parameters of your design
       requirements.   Another  index will identify by product U.S. sources for items designed
       to metric dimensions, as opposed  to those converted to metric dimensions from
       customary measurements.

       This file is available  for your in-person use in the library, and enlargement
       copies can  be  made for  you at $.15 per sheet.  To save you a trip to the library,
       the searching  and copying can be  done for you by a member of the library staff at
       our regular rates for searching and photoreproduction.

-------
           GEORGIA INSTITUTE  ^TECHNOLOGY
                PRICE GlLBERT/^/AORlAL UBRARf
                GUIDE ID LOCATION <*/AATERlALS
                *  DEXVEYDEa/AAJLCLASSIRCATlON
                              FBRSTROQA
                                                               GCVERN/AENT DOOJ'AENTS &
                                                               TECNICALI^PORTS COIEOIONS
                          CONFERENCE K/Aja.  CONFERENCE
                                          699"
                                                                                 7*
                                                                                 RDDfl
                                                    (o*
                                                    FLOCK
                                                                                       5*
                                                                                       FlflOK
            DIRECTORS'
            OFR1CES
                                                              LIBRARY AE/AINISTR&nON OFFICES
                                                              ATA9-TN
                                                             SERVICES TOBU3NESS&|NDUSrR/
                                                             A QDB-QZ^SrT-TAS
                                                    FIOCR
«*
NEELY
ROOA   RESERVEl
 AA-AP
            west buildirg
                                            ^OTOCOPOMG ,XEROK
                                              ITEK  ft.  IB/A)
                                                                  CENTER AQ-QC£
                                                     FLOOR
                                                 CARD
                          REFERENCE DEFT.,VS/AF,CDa.E6EOSIAa5QS
                          ABSn?ACI5,>l
                          A.ZI-Z9999
                              east buildirg
Pevey Classification!

000-699	5th Floor East
700-999	4th Floor West
Library of Congress Classification;

A - AP2/.M	1st Floor West
                           (West Alcove)
AP2/.N - AP999	1st Floor West
                           (East Alcove)
AS - AS239	2nd Floor West
                           (West Alcove)
AS240 - AZ	2nd Floor West
                           (East Alcove)
B - BZ	2nd Floor West
            (Following Current Periodicals)
C - D757/.L4	3rd Floor West
                           (West Alcove)
D757/.LA - Hl/.Y	3rd Floor West
Hl/.Y - HB71/.E3	3rd Floor West
                           (East Alcove)
HB71/.E4 - HZ	3rd Floor West
J,K,L,M,N,P	4th Floor West
Q - QD2	2nd Floor East
QD3 - QZ,R*,S,T - TA8	3rd Floor East
TA9 - TO	4th Floor East
TP - TX.U.V	5th Floor East
Zl - Z9999	1st Floor East
          BIBLIOGRAPHY	1st Floor East

          BIOGRAPHIES	4th Floor West
                                            (Following the 900's)

          GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS	6th Floor East

          MAPS	4th Floor West

          NEWSPAPERS	1st Floor West

          PATENTS	4th Floor West
                                                   (West Alcove)

          PERIODICALS (Unbound, Recent)	2nd Floor West

          TECHNICAL REPORTS	6th Floor East

          COLLEGE CATALOGS	1st Floor East

          CITY PLANNING READING CENTER	3rd Floor West
                                   (Inner Wall Facing Reading Area)

          VISUAL SEARCH MICROFILM FILE	 1st Floor East

          SERVICE TO BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY	3rd Floor East
   * This  "R" applies only to materials
     in the field of MEDICINE.  All other
     R's should be disregarded when looking
     for a book.
          OVERSIZE VOLUMES  (Shelved On Bottom Shelves)
                  LIBRARY HOURS:
Monday - Thursday:
Friday:
Saturday:
Sunday:
                                                8 AM - Midnight
                                                8 AM - 6 PM
                                                9 AM - 6 HI
                                                2 PM - Midnight

-------
                      INFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTER
                      PRICE GILBERT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
                      GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
                      PHOTOCOPY REQUEST FORM
                                                 Date
                                                 Your order no.
                                                                Deposit account no.
   MAIL TO:
                                                  SERVICE REQUESTED:
                                                  Photocopy  O
                                                  Enlargement from microtext
                                                  Microfiche duplication  O
                                                  Microfilm  dl  	
                                                                 Please back order items not
                                                                 available from the Georgia
                                                                 Tech Library.  D	
                                                                 I/We agree to the conditions set
                                                                 forth on the back of this sheet.
                                                                 Signature  	
Leave Blank
SUBMIT ORDER IN DUPLICATE.  References should include journal title,
volume & date;  author, title & paging of article.
Leave Blank
              1.
              2.
             DEFORMATION EXCHANGE CENTER
             PRICE GILBERT MEMORIAL LIBRARY
             GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
             ATLANTA, GEORGIA  30332

             For use with window envelope
                                           OUR ORDER NO.

                                           Handling fee(s)

                                           Photocopies 	

                                           Verification  _

                                           Back order  	

                                           Other
                                           AMOUNT DUE

                                           DATE MAILED

-------
                                                     GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY
                                                     Information Services

                                                       General Policies


   The Library provides a variety of information services to other libraries, business, industry, government agencies, and
   individuals, including Georgia Tech personnel acting in a private capacity.

   Interlibrary loans, reference and bibliographic services and verification are free to academic and public libraries.
   These same services, as well as the others described here, are available to others on a fee basis.
REPRODUCTION SERVICES;  These services are provided solely
   for research and in lieu of lending material or in place
   of manual copying.  Fees are charged to recover the
   costs of services rendered;  the Library is not engaged
   in the sale of photocopies.  All responsibility for use
   made of photocopies is assumed by the applicant.  The
   Library will not reproduce copyrighted materials beyond
   recognized "fair use" without the signed authorization of
   the copyright owner.  Your signature on a request form
   will be considered an acceptance of these conditions.
   PHOTOCOPYING OR MICROFILMING
      $2.50 handling fee per item, plus 10c per page

   ENLARGEMENTS (FROM MICROTEXT)
      $2.50 handling fee per item, plus 15c per page

   MICROFICHE DUPLICATIONS
      $2.50 handling fee per item, plus 35c per fiche
BACK ORDERS:  $5.00 minimum per item plus costs to the
   Library.  We will endeavor to obtain photocopies of
   items not held by Georgia Tech if so instructed.  It is
   our responsibility to provide complete bibliographic
   information to another source.  Therefore, it will
   expedite your requests and avoid verification charges
   if you include all the information you have when the
   request is first submitted.  It is also important to
   include a verification from a standard source (Chemical
   Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, etc.) when known.
   A surcharge may be necessary for items extremely
   difficult to obtain.  This surcharge will vary and will
   be at the discretion of the professional staff.
LITERATURE SEARCHING!  Literature searches can be retro-
   spective or current awareness, or both.  Manual and
   on-line computer searching can also be combined, as
   needed, to cover the topic and time span of interest.

      MANUAL:  $15.00 per hour plus reproduction and
      handling costs, not to exceed five hours without
      further consultation or authorization.

      COMPUTERIZED:  On-line costs vary with the data
      bases being searched.  Over 50 data bases are
      available.   Please inquire about rates for subjects
      of interest to you.
VERIFICATION;  $5.00 - $10.00 per item depending on
   complexity.  Establishment of correct information
   leading  to completion of a request can  involve consider-
   able professional staff time.  If we can  supply an  item
   the verification fee is added to the other charges.  If
   we cannot supply an item any information  found is
   passed on to the patron and only the verification fee
   is charged.

INTERLIBRARY LOANS;  $5.00 per item.  To libraries only.
   Individuals or companies without libraries should
   consult  their local public libraries.
REFERENCE/BIBLIOGRAPHIC SERVICES;  $15.00 per hour (less than
   one hour $10.00) plus copying charges incurred.  Quick
   answer questions are usually handled without charge.  Fees
   are at the discretion of the librarian performing the
   service and are based on professional time and judgment.

TRANSLATIONS:  $5.00 per item for searching for existing
   translations.  If none can be found a custom translation
   can be provided for a $5.00 handling fee plus costs to
   the Library.

GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY MICROFICHE CATALOG:  Basic catalog plus
   supplements.  Subscription.  Please inquire.
RUSH SERVICE AND TELEPHONE REQUESTS:  Rush service is available at $10.00 per item (including handling fees) plus copying
   charges or Interlibrary loan charge.  507. surcharge for literature searches.  For telephone requests there is a transcrip-
   tion fee of $2.50 per item plus regular handling fee and copying charges or interlibrary loan charge.  If a telephone
   request is also a Rush Service request, Rush Service fees are also charged.  These services are available (without
   charge) in emergency situations to academic and public libraries.

SHIPPING;  The Library endeavors to fill all orders as promptly as possible.  Photocopied material will normally be sent by
   first class mail at no extra charge to patrons in the U.S. and Canada.  Material to other countries will normally be sent
   by air mail printed matter and cost of postage will be added.  We are not responsible for loss or damage in transit.

PAYMENT:  DO NOT PREPAY REQUESTS.  Exact fees cannot always be determined in advance and are subject to change without notice.
   DO NOT SEND REMITTANCE UNTIL BILLED.  Billing can be by monthly invoices or deposit accounts.  Unless a deposit account has
   baen established, invoices will be sent.  If you wish to establish a deposit account (to avoid issuing monthly checks)
   please write to the Library for application forms and explanatory material.
  Rev. 12/1/76

-------
  u
  u
  o
                                    Appendix 10
                                    A
                            NEED A SEARCH

                                 OF THE

                            AIR POLLUTION

                             LITERATURE?
< 5;   j
a. 2   -•
  t«   -^
CxJ W   '
£ (_ W                              Commercial (919) 549-8411
 U                                 FTS 629-2460

-------
                         FREE  AIR POLLUTION LITERATURE  SERVICES

Who Gets Free Service?

Employees of the following organizations may receive certain free services:

   US EPA organizations                        State and local governmental agencies
   Current contractors and grantees of             
-------
       AVAILABLE TO  CERTAIN PARTIES

 How Can You Get A Search Made Of The Air Pollution Literature?

  Call or write to the appropriate library listed below. If you write, include your telephone number.
 Describe the subject matter that you seek. You may specify any data bases to be searched. The library
 will search the APTIC file and other files and send listings of the retrieved literature citations, in many
 cases with abstracts, to you. Depending on the postal service, you may receive this within 3 days.


                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Library (MD-35)
                 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
                 Commercial Phone - (919) 549-8411 Ext. 2777 or 2794
                 FTS Phone - 629-2779
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employees only may also request literature searches from
 the following two EPA libraries.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                  EPA Library (PM-213)
     Library                                            Room M2404
     Cincinnati, Ohio 45268                              401 M Street, SW
     FTS Phone - 684-7701                              Washington, D.C. 20460
                                                       FTS Phone • 755-0386


How Can You Get A Copy Of An EPA Air Pollution Publication?
  Free copies of US EPA publications are available free of charge, so long as supplies last, from the
US EPA library in Research Triangle Park, N.C. (address and phone above). When supplies are
exhausted, you will be referred to the U.S. Government Printing Office or the National Technical
Information Service.
How Can You Get A Copy Of An Article In The APTIC File?
  US EPA employees can get a hard copy or microfiche copy of any article in the APTIC file.
  Other parties eligible for free service can get a microfiche copy of any article in the APTIC file.
  Anyone can get a hard copy or microfiche copy of any article in the APTIC file when the article is
not available in the open literature.
  Write or phone requests to the US EPA Library in Research Triangle Park, N.C. (address and
phones above).

-------
                 WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT
                     ELIGIBLE FOR FREE SERVICES?

 Getting Air Pollution  Literature Searches

   Anyone can get a literature search made for a small fee. EPA makes the APTIC file publicly accessi-
 ble to everyone on the on-line computer system of the Lockheed Corp. under terms of a contract with
 the Franklin Institute. Lockheed, and others, have similarly mounted many other data bases on their
 computer systems. If you have access to an appropriate computer terminal and a telephone, you may
 search the millions of citations in these data bases. Anyone may make separate arrangements with the
 on-line services including:

                     • Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory
                       3251 Hanover Street
                       Palo  Alto, California 94304
                       Phone-  (800) 227-1960

                     •' System Development Corporation (SDC)
                       2500 Colorado Avenue
                       Santa Monica, California 90406
                       Phone-  (800) 421-7229

                     • Bibliographic Retrieval Services, Inc. (BRS)
                       1462 Erie Boulevard
                       Schenectady, New York 12305
                       Phone-  (518) 374-5011
 Getting Copies Of EPA Publications On Air Pollution

  Anyone can get a copy of an EPA air pollution publication by writing to the US EPA Library
 (MD-35) at Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. Copies will be provided as long as supplies last.
 When supplies are exhausted, copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information
 Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22161.
Getting Copies Of Articles In The APTIC File

  Anyone can get a copy of any item in the APTIC file which is not available in the open literature.
Requests should be addressed to the US EPA Library (MD-35) at Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Phone -  (919) 549-8411 Ext. 2777 or 2794.

-------
Carolina Library Services

1404Brigham Rd.

Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
        0  *
        =P  O

       •g   *

    K)  
o  cr
3  O

31  5

1  5'
3  ora


^2=
§  §

-------
? v 2.   |i 3
S ? 5' o  - ^
*g 3 m Si. 3 o
jP o" r~ ~- &> c
O
    3
         §
           Q_
                             3«2  o jg =: (/i
                           ^,  c  c 2 cr »
                         1 =? £ »
                         ® ?g rt 3
                         a a o. *<
                                         Appendix 11
roductiv

3
Q.
^<
O
C
— (

r*
38
-h
0
-I
ft
rarians.
^^0
a>
o
f
w
c
srvices c
(U
o-
«
•<
O
c
•V
>
T3
rt
n
V
(-f

Carolina

r
                                 o 3. X  °"
                                   ?N O  ~t
                                 (TO -S 3  £J
                                                   1


 0
 r-
           —   ^^O
                 ff

                      2
                          fi

     — O
       O

     o 5

     c£ E
     CJ rt-

     2, §
                                     «
                                     3
                                          — 5' C")
                                                O O

                 - «
                      &
                      8
   g.
                                            = =

                                              D. O

                                              8
Il
8- s



                   I si


                                    if
                                                II

  3

I!
   0-
I  B


                                  3
                                  «
                                    §
                                      I


-------
CAROLINA LIBRARY SERVICES
1^0^ Briccham Rd.
Chapel Hill, !T.CT.
 919-929-^870
                                                           Appendix 12
                          RATFS
   DOCUMFKT
       Photocopies of articles,
       documents, etc. from CL3
       staffed sources.*

       Purchases and photocopies
       from other sources

       Rush (2^-hour service)
                                         ^5.00/item +  costs

                                         $2.00  extra
   RESEARCH
       Bibliographies

       Consultation for organizing
       or Indexing materials or data

       Current Awareness service
                                         ^15.00/hour  +  costs ($10.00 for
                                         students) Minimum 2 hours

                                         .$17.50/hour

                                         Quote  on  request
   Note: Postage, toll calls and other  expenses  are charged back
         to the customer at cost.
   Statments or bills are sent on a  monthly  basis.   Deposit accounts
   are encouraged.
   *CLS staffed sources are  NCSU Hill  Library,  Duke Perkins, Duke
   Medical, UPC Wilson, UKC Law, UTC Health  Sciences Library and
   EPA/RTP.
CAROLINA LIBRARY SERVICES specializes in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW and REGULATIONS
and difficult to obtain EPA DOCUHSiTS. Let us help you.

-------
                                                DRAFT - 12/15/77
                           APPENDIX  13
               EJ^A/NRC^Spcond Memorandum ojF_Ujiderst?.jiding.

    Approximately two years have passed since the EPA/NRC Second
Memorandum of Understanding agreement went into effect, thus it is
an appropriate time to reflect experiences under the agreement to
date,  Eleven nuclear power generating plants have been implemented
under the agreement and on six other cases, cooperation has been in-
stigated or carried out to varying degrees,  Of the latter cases„
initial licensing was already under way or involved permitee   State
cases.
    Experience to date has had a high degree of success.  Such per-
formance has been due to the cooperative attitude of EPA/NRC and permit
State agencies in recognizing that ti:c parallel perfonrance of ike NEPA,
FWPCA and even State review are very much to the advantage of the
agencies, the public and the applicant.   EPA has been informed and
afforded the opportunity to take part in site visits, technical con-
ferences and other meetings having a bearing on water quality or related
issues.  EPA has also been given the opportunity to observe at meetings
with applicants and parties to NRC proceedings where e^vironniantal  issues
and other areas of EPA jurisdiction are  discussed.   NRC supplies copies
of all comments on the DEIS to EPA as soon as they are received.   EPA
participates with NRC in responding to those comments upon water quality
matters and other areas of EPA jurisdiction and related expertise (i.e.,
solid waste, noise, environmental  radiation and air programs).

-------
                                 -  2  -

    The coordination between agencies to date  has  generally extended
the previous NRC schedule,  however, the  benefits derived for the appli-
cant and the public - considering the sequential evaluation of environ-
mental impacts, new information effecting previous agency decisions and
potential  of opposing positions by  the  various  concerned agencies certainly
appears to justify the coordination.   There  has been difficulty on "old
sources" in the NRC operating license stage  environmental review or changes
in NPDCS conditions on operating plants.   Although the Second Memorandum
covers "new sources" because of EPA's responsibility to prepare an
Environmental Statement,  extending  the  cooperative interchange of status,
new information coordination prior  to actions  taken by either agency or
the appropriate state can be extremely helpful.

    It is  believed that joint hearings  will  bring  considerable benefits
both to the Federal and State licensing process, and avoid costly duplica-
tion of effort and lead to  the development of  better and more complete
records, and consequently,  to more  informed  decisions.  Joint hearings
should also enhance the opportunity for effective  public participation in
the decisional processes  of both agencies.  The experience that both
agencies have gained operating under the agreement will be very beneficial
in implementing the new CEQ regulations  scheduled  to be released in early
1978, and in working with the Department of Energy (DOE).

-------
            APPENDIX 14
  FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978
       PART II
  COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL
     QUALITY
     NATIONAL
  ENVIRONMENTAL
    POLICY ACT

 Proposed Regulations  for
 Implementing Procedural
       Provisions

-------
25230
          PROPOSED RULES
[3125-01]

   COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
              QUALITY

  [40 CFR Port* 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504,
         1505, 1506, 1507, 1508]

 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT—
            REGULATIONS

   Proposed Implementation of Procedural
              Provisions

                      MAY 31. 1978.
AGENCY:  Council on Environmental
Quality, Executive Office of the Presi-
dent.
ACTION: Proposed regulations.
SUMMARY: These  proposed  regula-
tions implementing  procedural provi-
sions of  the National Environmental
Policy Act  are  submitted for public
comment.  These  regulations would
provide Federal agencies with uniform
procedures for implementing the law.
The  regulations  would  accomplish
three principal aims: to  reduce paper-
work, to reduce delays, and to produce
better decisions.
DATES:  Comments  must be received
by August 11, 1978.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to: Nicholas C. Yost, Gener-
al Counsel,  Attention:  NEPA  Com-
ments,  Council   on  Environmental
Quality,   722  Jackson   Place   NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20006.
FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Nicholas C. Yost,  General Council
  on Environmental  Quality  (address
  same as above), 202-633-7032.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

             1. PURPOSE

  We are publishing for public review
draft regulations to implement the Na-
tional   Environmental  Policy   Act.
Their purpose is to provide all Federal
agencies  with  an  efficient,  uniform
procedure for translating the law into
practical action.  We expect the new
regulations to accomplish three princi-
pal  aims:  To reduce paperwork, to
reduce delays, and at the same time to
produce   better   decisions,   thereby
better accomplishing the law's objec-
tive, which  is  to protect and enhance
the  quality of  the  human  environ-
ment.
  These regulations replace the Guide-
lines issued  by  previous   Councils,
under  Executive  Order  11514 (1970),
and  apply  more broadly. The Guide-
lines assist Federal agencies in carry-
ing out NEPA's most conspicuous re-
quirement, the preparation of environ-
mental   impact  statements  (EISs).
These regulations were developed in
response to Executive  Order   11991
issued by President Carter in 1977, and
implement "the procedural provisions
of the Act." They address all nine sub-
divisions of Section 102(2) of the Act,
rather than just the EIS provision cov-
ered by the Guidelines, and they carry
out the  broad purposes and  spirit of
the Act.
  President Carter instructed us that
the regulations should be:
• * • designed  to make the  enviromental
impact statement more useful to decision-
makers and the public; and to reduce'paper-
work and the accumulation of extraneous
background data, in order to emphasize the
need to focus on real environmental issues
and alternative^.
  The President has  also signed  Ex-
ecutive Order 12044, dealing with reg-
ulatory reform. It is our intention that
that  Order and these NEPA regula-
tions be read together and implement-
ed consistently.

 2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADE BY THE
            REGULATIONS

  Following this mandate in develop-
ing the new regulations, we have kept
in mind the threefold objective of less
paperwork, less  delay, and better deci-
sions.

       A. REDUCING PAPERWORK

  The measures  tov reduce  paperwork
are listed in sec. 1500.4 of the regula-
tions. Neither NEPA nor these regula-
tions impose  paperwork requirements
on  the  public.   These  regulations
reduce such requirements on agencies
of government.
  i. Reducing the length  of environ-
mental impact  statements.  Agencies
are  directed  to  write  concise  EISs,
which shall  normally  be less than
150 pages, or, for proposals of unusual
scope and complexity, 300 pages.
  ii. Emphasize options among alter-
natives.  The  regulations  stress  that
the environmental analysis is to con-
centrate on alternatives, which are the
heart of the matter; to treat peripher-
al matters briefly; and to avoid accu-
mulating masses  of  background data
which tend to obscure the important
issues.
  iii. Using an early "scoping" process
to  determine  what   the  important
issues are. To assist agencies in decid-
ing what the central issues  are, how
long the EIS shall be, and how the re-
sponsibility for the EIS will be allo-
cated among  the lead  agency and co-
operating agencies,^ a  new -"scoping"
procedure  is  established.  Scoping
meetings are to be held as early in the
NEPA  process  as  possible-^in most
cases, shortly after the decision to pre-
pare an EIS—and shall be integrated
-with other planning.
  iv.  Writing  in plain language. The
regulations strongly advocate writing
in plain, direct language.
  v. Following a clear, format. The reg-
ulations spell out a standard format
intended to eliminate repetitive discus-
sion,  stress  the  major  conclusions,
highlight  the  areas of  controversy,
and focus on the issues to be resolved.
  vi. Requiring summaries of environ-
mental impact statements to make the
document more usable by more people.
  vii.  . Eliminating  duplication,   To
eliminate duplication, the regulations
provide for Federal  agencies, to pre-
pare EISs  jointly with state and local
units of government which have "little
NEPA"    requirements.   They  also
permit a Federal agency  to adopt an-
other agency's EIS.
  viii.  Consistent  terminology.  The
regulations provide a uniform termin-
ology  for  the  implementation   of
NEPA. For instance, the CEQ require-
ment for an environmental assessment
will replace the following (nonexhaus-
tive)  list  of   comparable  existing
agency procedures: "survey" (Corps of
Engineers), "environmental analysis"
(Forest  Service), "initial assessment"
(Transportation),  "normal  or  special
clearance"  (HUD),   "environmental
analysis report"  (Interior),  and "mar-
ginal impact statement" (HEW).)
  ix.  Reducing  paperwork  require-
ments. The regulations will reduce re-
porting  paperwork  requirements   as
summarized   below.   The   existing
Guidelines  issued  under  Executive
Order 11514 cover section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA (environmental impact state-
ments), and the new CEQ regulations
cover sections 102(2) (A) through  (I).
The regulations  replace not only the
requirements of  the Guidelines con-
cerning environmental impact state-
ments, but also replace more than  70
different sets of  existing  agency regu-
lations,  although  each  agency  will
issue its own implementing procedures
to explain how these regulations apply
to its particular programs.
 Existing Requirements    New Requirements
 (Applicable Guidelines  (Applicable regulations
   sections are noted,}     sections are noted.)
Assessment (optional
  under Guidelines on a
  case-by-case basis;
  currently required,
  however by most major
  agencies in practice or
  in procedures) 1500.6.

Notice of intent to
  prepare impact
  statement 1500.6.

Quarterly list of notices
  of intent 1500.6.
Negative determination
  (decision not to
  prepare impact,
  statement) 1500.6.
Quarterly list of negative
  determinations 1500.6.
Draft EIS 1500.7	
Final EIS 1500.6, .10	
EISs on legislative
  reports ("agency
  reports on legislation
  initiated elsewhere")
  1500.5(a)(l).
Agency report to CEQ on
  Implementation
  experience 1500.14
-------
                                                PROPOSED, RULES
                                                                                                           25231
                     New Requirements
                   (Applicable regulations
                     sections are noted.)
                     Do.
                   Record of decision (brief
                    explanation of decision
                    EIS has been prepared;
                    no circulation
                    requirement) 1505.2.
 Existing Requirements
 (Applicable Guidelines
  sections are noted.)
Agency report to CEQ on
 substantive guidance
 1500.6(O, .14.
Record of decision (no
 Guideline provision
 but required by many
 agencies' own
 procedures and In a
 wide range of cases
 generally under the
 Administrative
 Procedure Act and
 OMB Circular A-95,
 Part I, sec. 6(c) and (d).
 Part II. sec. 5<4)>.
          B. REDUCING DELAY

  The measures  to  reduce delay are
listed in § 1500.5 of the regulations.
  i. Time  limits on the NEPA process.
The regulations encourage lead agen-
cies to  set time  limits on the NEPA
process and require that they be set
when requested by an applicant.
  ii. Integrating EIS requirements with
other environmental  review  require-
ments. Often  the NEPA process and
the  requirements of other laws pro-
ceed  separately,  causing  delay. The
regulations  provide for  all agencies
with  jurisdiction over the project to
cooperate so that all reviews may be
conducted simultaneously.
  iii.  Integrating the NEPA process
into early planning. If environmental
review is  tacked on  to the end of the
planning  process, then the process  is
prolonged, or else the EIS is written to
justify  a decision  that  has already
been made, and genuine consideration
may not  be. given  to  environmental
factors.
  iv. Emphasizing interagency cooper-
ation before the  EIS is drafted. The
regulations  emphasize   that   other
agencies  should  begin  cooperating
with the lead agency before the EIS is
prepared  in order to encourage early
resolution of  differences. By  having
the affected agencies cooperate early
in preparing a draft EIS, we hope both
to  produce a better  draft  and  to
reduce delays  caused by unnecessarily
late criticism.
  v. Swift and fair  resolution of lead
agency disputes. When agencies differ
as to who shall take the lead  in pre-
paring an EIS or none is willing to
take the lead, the regulations provide
a means for prompt resolution' of the
dispute.
  vi. Prepare  EISs on programs and
not repeat the  same material in project
specific  EISs.  Material  common  to
many  actions  may  be  covered in  &
broad EIS, and then through "tiering"
may  be  incorporated   by reference
rather than reiterated in each subse-
quent EIS.
  vii.  Legal delays. The  regulations
provide that litigation should come at
the end rather than in the middle of
the process.
  viii. Accelerated procedures for legis-
lative proposals.  The regulations pro-
vide accelerated simplified procedures
for environmental analysis of legisla-
tive proposals, to fit better with Con-
gressional schedules.

         C. BETTER DECISIONS

  Most of the features described above
will help to  improve  decisionmaking.
This, of course, is  the fundamental
purpose of the NEPA process, the end
to,which the EIS is a means. Section
101  of NEPA sets forth the substan-
tive requirements  of  the Act,  the
policy  to  be  implemented  by  the
"action-forcing" procedures of Section
102. These procedures must be tied to
their intended purpose, otherwise they
are  indeed useless  paper  work  and
wasted  time. A central purpose of
these regulations is to  tie means to
ends.
  i.  Securing more  accurate,  profes-
sional   documents.  The  regulations
insist upon accurate documents as the
basis for sound decisions. The docu-
ments should draw upon all the appro-
priate disciplines from the natural and
social sciences, plus the environmental
design arts. The lead agency is respon-
sible for the professional integrity of
reports,  and  care should be taken to
keep any possible bias from data pre-
pared by applicants out of the  envi-
ronmental  analysis.  A list of people
who helped  prepare documents,  and
their    professorial    qualifications,
should be included in the EIS.
  ii. Recording in the decision how the
EIS was used. The new regulations re-
quire-agencies to point out in the EIS
analysis  of alternatives  which one is
preferable      on      environmental
grounds—including  the   often-over-
looked alternative of no action at all.
(However,  if  "no action" is identified
as   environmentally  preferable,   a
second-best alternative must also be
pointed out.)
  Agencies must also produce a concise
public record, indicating how  the BIS
was used in arriving at the decision. If
the EIS is  disregarded, it really is use-
less paperwork.  It only contributes if
It is used  by the decisionmaker  and
the pubic. The record must state what
the final decision was; whether the en-
vironmentally  preferable  alternative
was selected;  and If not, what consider-
ations  of national policy  led to an-
other choice.
  iii. Insure follow-up  of agency deci-
sions. When  an agency requires  envi-
ronmentally   protective   mitigation
measures in  its decision, the  'regula-
tions provide for means to ensure that
these measures are monitored and im-
plemented.
  Taken  altogether,  the  regulations
aim for a streamlined process, but one
which as a broader purpose than the
Guidelines they  replace. The Guide-
lines emphasized a  single  document,
the EIS, while the regulations empha-
size the entire  NEPA process, from
early  planning  through  assessment
and EIS  preparation  through  provi-
sions for  follow-up. They attempt to
gear means to ends—to insure that the
action-forcing procedures of sec. 102(2)
of NEPA are used by agencies to fulfill
the requirements of the Congression-
ally mandated policy  set  out  in  sec.
101 of the Act. Furthermore, the regu-
lations are  uniform, applying  in  the
same way to  all federal  agencies,  al-
though each  agency will  develop  its
own procedures for implementing the
regulations. Our  attempt  has been
with  these  new  regulations to carry
out as faithfully as possible the origi-
nal  intent  of Congress  in enacting
NEPA.

           3.  BACKGROUND

  We have been greatly assisted in our
task by the hundreds of people who
responded to  our call for suggestions
on how to  make the NEPA process
work better. In public hearings which
we held in June 1977, we invited testi-
mony from a broad array of public of-
ficials, organizations, and private citi-
zens, affirmatively involving NEPA's
critics as well as its friends.
  Among  those represented were  the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which co-
ordinated  testimony  from  business;
the Building and Construction  Trades
Department   of  the  AFL-CIO,-  for
labor; the  National  Conference  of
State Legislatures,  for state and local
governments;  the Natural  Resources
Defense Council, for  environmental
groups. Scientists,  scholars, and  the
general public were there.
  There was extraordinary consensus
among these   diverse  witnesses.  All,
without exception, expressed the view
that   NEPA  benefited  the  public.
Equally widely shared was the view
that the process had become needless-
ly cumbersome and should be trimmed
down. Witness after witness said that
the length and detail of EIS's made it
extremely difficult to distinguish/the
important from the trivial. The degree
of unanimity  about the good and bad
points of  the  NEPA process was such
that  at one point  an  official spokes-
man  for the oil  industry rose to  say
that  he adopted in its entirety  the
presentation of the President  of  the
Sierra Club.
  After the hearings  we  culled  the
record to  organize both the problems
and the  solutions  proposed by wit-
nesses into a  38-page "NEPA Hearing
Questionnaire."  The  questionnaire
was  sent to all witnesses,  every state
governor,  all federal agencies, and  ev-
eryone who responded to an invitation
in the FEDERAL REGISTER.  We received
more than 300 replies, from a broad
cross section of groups and individuals.
By the comments we received from re-
spondents we  gauged  our  success in
faithfully presenting the results of the
public hearings.  One  conimenter,  an
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
25232
         PROPOSED RULES
electric utility  official,  said that  for
the first time in his life he knew the
gt>Kernment was listening to him,  be-
cailse all the suggestions made at the
hearing  turned up  in  the question-
naire.  We  then collated all  the  re-
sponses for use in- drafting the regula-
tions.
  We also met with every agency of
the  federal  government  to  discuss
what should be  in the  regulations.
Guided by these extensive interactions
with  government  agencies and  the
public, we prepared draft regulations
which were circulated for comment to
all federal agencies in December 1977.
We then studied agency comments in
detail, and consulted numerous federal
officials with special experience in  im-
plementing the Act.  Informal redrafts
were  circulated to  the  agencies with
greatest  experience in preparing envi-
ronmental   impact  statements.  Im-
provements  from  our  December  12
draft reflect this process.
  At the same time that federal agen-
cies were reviewing the early draft, we
continued to meet with, listen to, and
brief members of the public, including
representatives  of  business,  labor,
state  and local governments, environ-
mental  groups and others. We also
considered  seriously and  proposed in
our regulations virtually every major
recommendation made  by the Com-
mission on Federal Paperwork and the
General  Accounting Office in  their
recent studies  on  the environmental
impact statement process. The studies
by these two independent bodies were
among the most detailed and informed
reviews of  the paperwork  abuses of
the impact statement process. In many
case*, such  as  streamlining intergov-
ernmental coordination, the proposed
regulations go further than their rec-
ommendations.

            4. EXCLUSION

  It should be noted that the issue of
application of NEPA to environmental
effects occurring outside the United
States is the subject of  continued dis-
cussions within the government and is
not addressed in these regulations.  Af-
fected agencies continue  to hold dif-
ferent views on this issue. Nothing in
these regulations should be construed
as asserting that NEPA either does or
does not apply in this situation.-

  5. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE
            REGULATIONS

  Since Executive Order 12044 became
effective on March 23, 1978, after the
Council's draft  NEPA regulations had
completed   interagency  review,  the
extent  to   which   Executive  Order
12044 applies to the Council's nearly
completed   process  of   developing
NEPA regulations is not clear. Never-
theless, the  requirements of Executive
Order 12044 have been  undertaken to
the fullest extent possible. The analy-
ses required by sections 2 (b), (c), (d),
and 3(b), to the extent they may apply
to the Council's proposed NEPA regu-
lations, are available on request.
  The Council has prepared a special
environmental  assessment  of  these
regulations to Illustrate the analysis
that is appropriate  under NEPA. The
assessment discusses alternative regu-
latory  approaches.  Some regulations
lend themselves to an analysis of their
environmental  impacts,  particularly
regulations with  substantive require-
ments of those which apply to a physi-
cal setting. Although the Council obvi-
ously believes that its regulations will
work to  improve  environmental qual-
ity, the impacts of  procedural regula-
tions of  this kind are not susceptible
to detailed  analysis beyond that  set
out in the assessment.
  Both the  analyses under Executive
Order  12044 and the assessment  de-
scribed above are  available on request.
Comments may be made on both docu-
ments in the same manner and  by the
same time as the  comments  on the
regulations.

6. ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS FOR COMMENTS

  Several issues have been brought to
our attention as  appropriate subjects
to be covered in the regulations. They
are difficult  issues  on  which we par-
ticularly solicit thoughtful views.
  a.  Data bank. Many  were intrigued
by the idea of a national data bank in
which  information  developed  in  one
EIS would be stored and become avail-
able for  use in  a subsequent EIS.
Public comment on the questionnaire
led us to conclude, reluctantly, that
the  idea is  impractical.,In practice
most environmental  information  is
specific to given areas or activities. To
assemble  a  nationwide  data bank
would demand financial and other re-
sources that are simply  beyond the
benefits  that may  be  achieved. We
have not included a data bank in these
regulations but have instead tried  to
insure that in the scoping process the
preparers of one EIS become aware of
all related EISs so they can make use
of the information in them. We would,
however,  welcome  comment on  this
subject.
  b.  Encouragement for  agencies  to
fund public comments on EISs when
an important viewpoint would other-
wise not be presented. The Council has
been urged  to  provide either encour-
agement or direction to agencies,  as
part of their routine EIS preparation,
to provide funds to  responsible  groups
for public comments when important
viewpoints would  not otherwise be pre-
sented. Although  we are acutely aware
of the importance of comments to the
success  of the  EIS process, we have
not  included such  a  provision.  We
would welcome comment on this sub-
ject also.
            CONCLUSION

  We look forward to your comments
and help. To repeat, comments should
be sent by August 11,1978, to Nicholas
C. Yost, General Counsel, Attention:
NEPA Comments, Council on Environ-
mental  Quality',  722  Jackson  Place
NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
  Thank you for cooperating with us.
                CHARLES WARREN,
                        Chairman.
  Title 40 Chapter V is proposed to be
amended by revising Part 1500 and by
adding  Parts  1501  through  1508  to
read as follows:

    PART 1500—PURPOSE, POLICY, AND
              MANDATE

Sec.
1500.1 Purpose.
1500.2 Policy.
1500.3 Mandate.
1500.4 Reducing paperwork.
1500.5 Reducing delay.
1500.6 Agency authority.
  AUTHORITY: NEPA,  the  Environmental
Quality  Improvement  Act  of   1970,  as
amended (42 U.8.C. 4371 et seq.), section 309
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514, Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970 as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991. May 24,1977).

§ 1500.1  Purpose.
  (a) The  National  Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic nation-
al charter for protection of the envi-
ronment.  It establishes  policy, sets
goals  (section  101),  and  provides
means (section 102) for carrying  out
the  policy. Section  102(2)  contains
"action-forcing" provisions  to  make
sure that federal agencies act accord-
ing to the letter and spirit of the Act.
The regulations that follow implement
Section 102(2). Their purpose is to tell
federal agencies what they must do to
comply  with  the  procedures   and
achieve the goals  of the  Act. The
President,  the federal agencies,  and
the courts share responsibility for en-
forcing the Act so  as to achieve  the
substantive  requirements  of section
101.
  (b) NEPA_p_rocedures must insure
that
                      are"
                   keK, The informa-
before aeti<
tion must be of high quality. Accurate
scientific analysis, expert agency com-
ments, and  public scrutiny  are  essen-
tial to implementing NEPA. Most im-
portant,  NEPA documents -JRWt-coi*-?
rrntrntr  on thffi inm«gfcthnt" nrr-tntir
significant to the action in question,
rather than amassing needless detail.
  (c)  Ultimately, of course, flN* note
betterdecuraej^bj^ better* decisions
that count.J
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
                                                                   25233
       fThe NEPA process is intended
"to help public officials make decisions
 that are based on understanding of en-
 vironmental consequences, and take
 actions that protect, restore, and en-
 hance the environment. These regula-
 tions provide the  direction to achieve
 this purpose.

 §1500.2 Policy.
   Federal agencies shall to the fullest
 extent possible:
   (a)  Interpret and administer the
 policies, regulations, and  public, laws
 of the United  States in  accordance
 with the policies set forth in the Act
 and in these regulations.
   (b) Implement -procedures to make
 the NEPA process more useful to deci-
 sionmakers and the public; to reduce
 paperwork  and the  accumulation  of
 extraneous background data;  and  to
 .emphasize real environmental., inantp
.and   alternative*.    Environmental
 impact statements  shall   be  concise,
 clear,  and to the  point,  and shall  be
 supported by evidence that agencies
 have made the necessary environmen-
 tal analyses.
   (c) fcafewraMr  the  requirements  of
 NEPA with other planning and envi-
 ronmental review  procedures required
 by law or by agency practice
   such rjrocedures,run
  (d) Encourage  and facilitate public
involvement in decisions which affect
the quality of  the  human environ-
ment.
  (e) Use the NEPA process to identify
and assess the reasonable alternatives
to proposed actions that will avoid or
minimize  adverse effects of these ac-
tions upon the quality of the human
environment.
  (f) Use all  practicable means,  con-
sistent  with the  requirements of the
Act and other essential considerations
of national policy, to restore and en-
hance the quality of  the human  envi-
ronment  and avoid  or minimize any
possible adverse  effects of their ac-
tions upon the quality of the human
environment.

11500.3  Mandate.
  Parts 1500-1508 of this Title provide
regulations applicable to and  binding
on all Federal agencies for implement-
Ing  the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42
TJ.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA or the Act)
except where  compliance would be in-
consistent with  other statutory re-
quirements.  These   regulations   are
Issued pursuant  to NEPA, the Envi-
ronmental Quality  Improvement Act
of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et
seq.), Section 309  of the Clean Air Act,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857h-7), and
Executive Order 11514, Protection and
Enhancement of Environmental Qual-
ity (March 5, 1970, as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order  11991, May  24, 1977).
These regulations, unlike the prede-
cessor guidelines,  are not confined to
Sec. 102(2)(C)  (environmental impact
statements). The regulations apply to
the whole of section 102(2). The provi-
sions of the Act and of these regula-
tions must be read together as a whole
in order to comply with the spirit and
letter of the law. It is the Council's in-
tention that judicial review of agency
compliance with these regulations  not
occur before an agency  has filed  the
final environmental impact statement,
or has made a finding of no significant
impact, or takes action that will result
in irreparable injury.

§ 1500.4  Reducing paperwork.
  Agencies shall reduce  excess paper-
work by:
  (a) Reducing the length of environ-
mental impact statements (§ 1502.2(c)),
by means-such as setting appropriate
page limits (§ 1501.7(b)
-------
25234
         PROPOSED  RULES
its existing authority  and as a man-
date to view traditional policies and
missions in the light of the Act's na-
tional environmental objectives. Agen-
cies shall review their policies, proce-
dures, and regulations accordingly and
revise them as necessary to ensure full
compliance with the purposes and pro-
visions of the Act. The phrase "to the
fullest extent possible" in section 102
means that, each agency of the Federal
Government shall  comply with  that
section  unless existing law applicable
to the  agency's operations expressly
prohibits or makes compliance impos-
sible.
 PART 1501—NEPA AND AGENCY PLANNING

Sec.
1501.1 Purpose.
1501.2 Apply NEPA early In process.
1501.3 When to prepare an environmental
   assessment.
1501.4 Whether to  prepare an environmen-
   tal impact statement.
1501.5 Lead agencies.
1501.6 Cooperating agencies.
1501.7 Scoping.
1501.8 Time limits.
  AUTHORITY: NEPA, the  Environmental
Quality  Improvement Act  of 1970,  as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.),  Section
309 of the- Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection  and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order  11991, May, 24, 1977).

§ 1501.1  Purpose.
  The purposes of this part include:
  (a)  Integrating  the  NEPA  process
into early planning to insure appropri-
ate consideration of NEPA's policies
and to eliminate delay.
  (b) Emphasizing cooperative consul-
tation among agencies before the envi-
ronmental impact  statement  is pre-
pared  rather  than adversary com-
ments on a completed document.
  (c) Providing for the swift and fair
resolution of lead agency  disputes.
  (d) Identifying  at an early stage the
significant environmental issues  de-
serving of study and deemphasizing in-
significant issues, narrowing the scope
of the  environmental impact  state-
ment accordingly.
  (e) Providing a mechanism for put-
ting appropriate time limits on the en-
vironmental impact statement process.

§ 1501.2  Apply NEPA early  in process.
  Agencies shall  integrate the  NEPA
process  with other planning  at the
earliest  possible  time  to insure that
planning and decisions reflect environ-
mental values, to avoid delays later in
the process, and to head off potential
conflicts. Each agency shall:
  (a) As specified by § 1507.2 comply
with the mandate of sec. 102(2)(A) to
"utilize  a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which  will insure the inte-
grated use of the  natural and social
sciences and the environmental design
arts in planning and in decisionmaking
which may have an impact on man's
environment."
  (b)  Identify  environmental effects
and values in adequate detail so they
can  be compared  to economic  and
technical   analyses.   Environmental
documents and appropriate  analyses
shall be circulated and reviewed at the
same  time as  other planning docu-
ments.
  (c) Study, develop, and describe ap-
propriate alternatives to recommended
courses of  action  in  any.  proposal
which involves unresolved  conflicts
concerning alternative uses of availa-
ble resources  as  provided  by  sec.
102(2)(E) of the Act.
  (d)  Provide for cases where actions
are planned  by  other than  Federal
agencies before Federal involvement
so that:
  (1) The sponsor of the proposal initi-
ates studies if Federal involvement is
foreseeable.
  (2)  The Federal  agency  consults
early  with appropriate State and local
agencies and with  interested private
persons and  organizations when its
own involvement is reasonably foresee-
able.
  (3) The Federal agency commences
its NEPA  process at the earliest possi-
ble time.

§ 1501.3  When to prepare an  environmen-
    tal assessment.
  An    environmental    assessment
(§ 1508.9) shall be prepared unless one
is not necessary under the  procedures
adopted  under  § 1507.3(b).  Agencies
may prepare an assessment  on  any
action at  any time in order to assist
agency planning and decisionmaking.

§ 1501.4  Whether to  prepare  an environ-
    mental impact statement.
  In determining whether  to prepare
an  environmental  impact  statement
the Federal agency shall:
  (a) Determine under § 1507.3 wheth-
er the proposal is one which
  (1)  Normally  requires an environ-
mental impact statement, or
  (2) Normally does not require either
an environmental impact statement or
an environmental assessment (categor-
ical exclusion).
  (b) If the proposed action is not cov-
ered by paragraph (a), prepare an en-
vironmental assessment (§ 1508.9). The
agency  shall  involve environmental
agencies and the public, to the extent
practicable, in preparing the assess-
ment.
  (c) Based on the environmental as-
sessment   make  its   determination
whether to prepare an environmental
impact statement.
  (d) If the agency will prepare an en-
vironmental  impact  statement,  the
agency  shall commence the scoping
process (§ 1501.7).
  (e) If the agency determines on the
basis of the environmental assessment
not to prepare a statement, the agency
shall prepare a finding of no-signifi-
cant impact (§ 1508.13).
  (1) The agency shall make the find-
ing of  no significant impact available
in a manner  calculated to inform the
affected public as specified in § 1506.6.
  (2) In certain limited circumstances
the agency shall make the.finding of
no  significant  impact  available for
public  review for 30 days before the
agency  makes its final  determination
whether to prepare an environmental
impact  statement and  before  the
action  may begin. The circumstances
are:
  (i) The proposed action is, or is close-
ly similar to, one which normally re-
quires  the preparation of an environ-
mental  impact  statement under the
procedures adopted by the agency pur-
suant to section 1507.3(b), or
  (ii)  The nature of  the  proposed
action is one without precedent.

§ 1501.5  Lead agencies.
  (a) A lead agency shall supervise the
preparation  of  an  environmental
impact  statement if  more than one
Federal agency either:
  (1) Proposes or is involved in the
same action; or
  (2) Is involved in a group of actions '
directly related  to each other because
of their functional interdependence or
geographical proximity.
  (b) More than one Federal, State, or
local agency,  one of  which must be
Federal, may act as joint lead agencies
to prepare an environmental impact
statement (section 1506.2).
  (c) If an action satisfies the provi-
sions of paragraph (a) of this section
the potential lead agencies concerned
shall determine by letter or memoran-
dum which agency shall be the lead
agency and which shall be cooperating
agencies.  The  agencies  shall  resolve
the lead agency question  in a manner
that will not cause delay. If there  is
disagreement among the agencies, the
following factors (which are listed in
descending importance)  shall  deter-
mine lead agency designation:
  (1) Magnitude of agency's involve-
ment.
  (2) Project  approval/disapproval au-
thority.
  (3) Expertise concerning the action's
environmental effects.
  (4)  Duration  of agency's  involve-
ment.
  (5)  Sequence of agency's  involve-
ment.
  (d) If potential lead agencies fail to
agree on which agency shall be the
lead agency as specified in paragraph
(c)  of  this section, (1) any Federal
agency or (2) any State or local agency
or private person substantially affect-
ed by  the absence of  agreement on
lead agency designation may make a
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
                                                                                                         25235
written request  to the  potential lead
agencies that a  lead agency be  desig-
nated.
  (e) If Federal agencies are unable to
agree on which agency will be the lead
agency or if the procedure described in
paragraph  (d) of this section has not
resulted within a reasonable time in a
lead agency designation,  any of  the
agencies or persons concerned may file
a request with the Council asking it to
determine which Federal agency shall
be the lead agency.
A  copy of  the request shall be  trans-
mitted to each potential lead agency.
The request shall consist of:
  (1)  A  precise description  of'  the
nature  and extent  of  the proposed
action;
  (2) A detailed statement of why each
potential lead agency should or should
not be the lead agency under the crite-
ria specified in subparagraph (2).
  (f) A response may be filed by  any
potential   lead   agency   concerned
within 20 days after a request is filed
with  the  Council. The Council shall
determine within 20 days  after receiv-
ing  the request  and  all  responses
which Federal agency shall be the lead
agency and the extent to which the
other Federal agencies concerned shall
be cooperating Federal agencies.

§1501.6  Cooperating agencies.
  The purpose of this section is to em-
phasize agency  cooperation  early in
the NEPA process.  Upon request of
the lead  agency, any  other  Federal
agency which has jurisdiction by law
shall be a cooperating agency. In addi-
tion any other Federal agency  which
has special expertise with respect to
any environmental issue, which should
be addressed in  the statement may be
a cooperating  agency upon request of
the lead agency.
  (a) The lead agency shall:
  (1) Request the participation of each
cooperating agency in the NEPA proc-
ess at the earliest possible  time.
  (2) To the maximum extent possible
consistent  with  its responsibility as
lead  agency  use the  environmental
analysis  and proposals  of cooperating
agencies with jurisdiction by law or
special expertise.
  (3)  Meet with  a cooperating agency
at the latter's request.
  (b> Eaeh cooperating agency shall;
  (1) Participate in the NEPA process
at the earliest possible time.
  (2)  Participate in the scoping proc-
ess.
  (3) .Assume on request  of  the lead
agency  responsibility  for developing
information and preparing  environ-
mental analyses includiBg portions oi
the environmental  impact statement
concerning  which   the  cooperating
agency has special expertise.
  (4)  Make available-staff rapport**
the lead agency's request*4o enhance
the latter's interdisciplinary capabili-
ty.
  (5)  Normally a  cooperating agency
shall  use  its own  funds.  The  lead
agency  shall,  to the extent available
funds permit,  fund those major activi-
ties or analyses it  requests from coop-
erating  agencies. Potential lead agen-
cies  shall  include such  funding re-
quirements in their budget requests

§ 1501.7  Scoping.
  There shall be  an early and  open
process for determining the seope of
issues to be addressed and for identify-
ing the significant issues. This process
shall  be termed scoping. As soon ta
practicable after its decision to pre-
pare  an environmental impact  state-
ment and  before the scoping process
the lead agency shall publish a notice
jof intent  (§ 1508.21) in the FEDERAL
REGISTER.
  (a)  As part of the scoping process
the lead agency shall:
  (1) Invite the participation of affect-
ed Federal, State, and  local agencies,
any affected Indian tribe, the propo-
nent of the action, and other interest-
ed persons (including those who might
not be in accord with the action).
  (2)  Determine the scope  (§1508.24)
and the significant  issues to be ana-
lyzed in depth in the  environmental
impact statement.
  (3)  Identify and eliminate from de-
tailed study the issues  which are not
significant or which  have been covered
by    prior   environmental   review
(§ 1506.3), narrowing the discussion of
these issues in the statement to a brief
presentation of why  they will not have
a significant effect on the human envi-
ronment or a  reference to their cover-
age elsewhere.
  (4) Allocate  assignments for prepara-
tion  of the  environmental impact
statement  among the lead and cooper-
ating agencies, with the  lead agency
retaining responsibility for the state-
ment.
  (5)  Indicate any environmental as-
sessments  and  other  environmental
impact  statements which are being or
will be prepared  that  are  related to
but are not part of the scope of the
impact  statement which is the subject
of the meeting.
  (6)  Identify  other  environmental
review  and consultation requirements
so the  lead and cooperating agencies
may comply with section 1502.25.
  (7) Indicate  the relationship between
the timing of the  preparation of envi-
ronmental  analyses  and the agency's
tentative  planning  and   , decision-
making schedule.
  (8)  When practicable hold an  early
scoping  meeting  or meetings which
may  be integrated  with any  other
early  planning  meeting  the agency
has. Such  scoping meeting will often
be appropriate when the impacts of a
particular  action are confined to spe-
cific sites.
  (b)  As part of the scoping process
the lead agency may:
  (1) Set page limits on environmental
documents (§ 1502.7).
  (2) Set time limits (§ 1501.8).
  (c) An agency shall revise the deter-
minations made under paragraphs (a)
and  (b) of this section if  substantial
changes  are  made later in the  pro-
posed action  or if significant new cir-
cumstances   (including  information)
arise which bear on the proposal or its
impacts.

§ 1501.8 Time limits.
  Although  the  Council has  decided
that  universal time   limits  for  the
entire NEPA process are too inflexible
to prescribe,  Federal agencies are en-
couraged to set time limits appropriate
to individual action (consistent  with
§ 1506.10). When multiple agencies are
involved the reference to agency below
means lead agency.
  (a) The agency shall:
  (1) Consider the following factors in
determining time limits:
  (i)  Potential    for  environmental
harm.
  (Up Size of the proposed action.
  (iii) State of the art of analytic tech-
niques.
  (iv) Degree of  public need  for the
proposed actions, including the conse-
quences of delay.
  (v9 Number of persons and agencies
affected.
  (vi) Degree to  which relevant infor-
mation is known and if not known the
time required for obtaining it.
  (vii) Degree to which the action is
controversial.
  (2) Set limits if an applicant for the
proposed action  requests  them,  pro-
vided that they  are consistent  with
the purposes of NEPA and other es-
sential   considerations  of  national
policy.
  (b) The agency may:
  (1) Set overall  time  limits or limits
for each constituent part of the NEPA
process, which may include:
  (i) Decision on whether to  prepare
an environmental impact statement (if
not already decided).
  (ii) Determination of the scope of
the environmental impact statement.
  (iii) Preparation of  the  draft  envi-
ronmental impact statement.
  (iv) Review of any comments on the
draft environmental impact statement
from the public and agencies.
  (v) Preparation of the final environ-
mental impact statement.
  (vi) Review of any comments on the
final environmental impact statement.
  (vii) Decision on the action based in
part  on  the environmental   impact
statement.
  (2) Designate a person (such as the
project manager or a person  in the
agency's office with NEPA responsibil-
ities) to expedite the NEPA process.
  (c) State or local agencies or mem-
bers of the public may request a Fed-
eral Agency to set time limits.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
25236
          PROPOSED RULES
   PART 1502—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
              STATEMENT

Sec.
1502.1  Purpose.
1502.2  Implementation.
1502.3  Statutory  Requirements for State-
   ments.
1502.4  Major  Federal  Actions Requiring
   the  Preparation  of  Environmental
   Impact Statements.
1502.5  Timing.
1502.6  Interdisciplinary Preparation.
1502.7  Page Limits.
1502.8  Writing.
1502.9  Draft,   Final,  and  Supplemental
   Statements.
1502.10 Recommended Format.
1502.11 Cover Sheet.
1502.12 Summary.
1502.13 Purpose and Need.
1502.14 Alternatives Including the  Pro-
   posed Action.
1502.15 Environmental Consequences.
1502.16 Affected Environment.
1502.17 List of Preparers.
1502.18 Appendix.
1502.19 Circulation  of the Environmental
   Impact Statement.
1502.20 Tiering.
1502.21 Incorporation by Reference.
1502.22 Incomplete  or  Unavailable Infor-
   mation.
1502.23 Cost-Benefit Analysis.
1502.24 Methodology and Scientific Accu-
   racy.
1502.25 Environmental Review and Consul-
   tation Requirements.
  AUTHORITY:  NEPA, the Environmental
Quality  Improvement  Act  of 1970, as
amended (42 U.S.C.  4371  et seq.), Section
309 of the Clean  Air Act, as amended (42
UJS.C. 1857h-7). and  Executive Order 11514.
Protection  and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24,1977).

§1502.1  Purpose.
  The primary purpose of an environ-
mental  impact  statement  is  as  an
action-forcing device- to  insure that
the policies and goals  defined in the
Act are infused  into the ongoing pro-
grams and actions of the Federal Gov-
ernment. It shall provide full and fair
discussion of  significant  environmen-
tal impacts and  shall inform decision-
makers and the public of the reason-
able alternatives which would avoid or
minimize adverse  impacts or enhance
the Quality  of  the  human environ-
ment. Agencies  shall  focus  on signifi-
cant environmental issues and alterna-
tives and shall reduce paperwork  and
the accumulation -of extraneous back-
ground data.  Statements shall be con-
cise, clear, and to  the point, and shall
be  supported by  evidence that  the
agency has made  the necessary envi-
ronmental analyses. An environmental
impact statement  is more than a dis-
closure document. It shall be used by
Federal officials in conjunction with
other relevant material to plan actions
and make decisions.

§1502.2  Implementation.
  To achieve  the purposes set forth in
{1502.1 agencies  shall prepare envi-
ronmental impact  statements in the
following manner:
  (a)   Environmental   impact  state-
ments shall  be analytic  rather  than
encyclopedic.
  (b) Impacts shall be discussed in pro-
portion  to  their significance. There
shall be  only brief discussion of other
than significant issues. As in a finding
of no significant impact, there should
be  only  enough discussion to show
why more study is not warranted.
  (c)   Environmental   impact  state-
ments shall be kept concise and  shall
be no longer than absolutely necessary
to comply with NEPA with these regu-
lations. Length should vary first with
potential environmental problems and
then with project size.
  (d)   Environmental   impact  state-*
ments shall state how alternatives con-
sidered in it and decisions baseon on it
will or will not achieve  the require-
ments of sections 101 and  102(1) of the
Act and other environmental laws and
policies.
  (e)  The  range of alternatives dis-
cussed in environmental impact state-
ments shall encompass  those the ulti-
mate agency declsionmaker considers.
  (f) Agencies shall  not  commit  re-
sources prejudicing selection  of alter-
natives before making a final decision
(§ 1506.1).
  (g)   Environmental   impact  state-
ments shall serve as the means of as-
sessing the environmental  impact of
proposed agency actions,  rather  than
justifying decisions already made.

§ 1502.3  Statutory requirements  for  state-
    ments.
  As  required by  sec.  102(2XC)  of
NEPA environmental  impact  state-
ments (§1508.11) are to be included in
every recommendation or report
  On proposals (§ 1508.22).
  For legislation and (§ 1508.16).
  Other    major   Federal  actions
(§ 1508.17).
  Significantly (§ 1508.25).
  Affecting (§§ 1508.3, 1508.8).
  The  quality of the human  environ-
ment (§ 1508.14).

§ 1502.4  Major Federal actions  requiring
    the   preparation   of  environmental
    impact statements.
  (a) Agencies shall make sure the pro-
posal  which is the subject of an  envi-
ronmental impact statement is proper-
ly defined. Agencies shall use the cri-
teria for  scope (§ 1508.24) to determine
which proposal(s) shall  be the subject
of a particular statement.  Proposals or
parts of proposals which are related to
each other closely  enough to be, in
effect, a single course of action  shall
be evaluated in a single impact state-
ment.
  (b)   Environmental   impact  state-
ments may be prepared, and are some-
times required, for broad Federal  ac-
tions  such as the adoption of new
agency   programs   or   regulations
(§ 1508.17).  Agencies   shall  prepare
statements on broad actions to be rele-
vant to policy and timed to coincide
with  meaningful points  in  agency
planning and decisionmaklng.
  (c) When preparing  statements on
broad  actions, agencies may  find it
useful to evaluate the  proposal(s) by
one or more agencies in one of the fol-
lowing ways:
  (1) Geographic, including actions oc-
curring hi the same general location,
such as an ocean, region, or metropoli-
tan area.
  (2) Generic, including actions which
have  relevant  similarities,  such  as
common timing, Impacts, alternatives.
methods of implementation, media, or
subject matter.
  (3)  Technological development  in-
cluding federal or federally assisted re-
search,  development or demonstration
programs  aimed  at  developing new
technologies which, if  applied,  could
significantly affect the quality  of the
human environment. Statements shall
be  prepared on such  programs and
shall be available before the program
has reached a  st£ge of investment or
commitment to implementation likely
to determine subsequent development
or restrict later alternatives.
  (d)  Agencies  shall  as  appropriate
employ  scoping  (§ 1501.7),  tiering
(§1502.20), and other methods listed
in §§ 1500.4 and 1500.5 to relate broad
and narrow actions and to  avoid dupli-
cation and delay.

§1502.5  Timing.
  An agency shall commence prepara-
tion of an environmental impact state-
ment as close as possible  to the time
the agency makes or is presented with
a proposal (§ 1508.22) so that prepara-
tion can be completed in time for the
final statement to be included in any
recommendation or report on the pro-
posal.  The statement  shall  be  pre-
pared early enough so that it can prac-
tically serve as an important contribu-
tion to the decisionmaking process and
shall not be used to  rationalize or jus-
tify     decisions    already     made
<§§ 1500.2(c),  1501.2, and  1502.2). For
instance:
  (a) For projects directly undertaken
by Federal agencies such statements
shall  be prepared at  the feasibility
analysis (go-no go) stage and may be
supplemented at a later stage if neces-
sary
  (b) For applications  to  the agency
appropriate preliminary  environmen-
tal assessments or statements shall be
commenced at  the latest immediately
after the application is received, but
federal  agencies  are  encouraged to
prepare them earlier, preferably joint-
ly with applicable State or local agen-
cies.
  (c) For adjudication,  the final envi-
ronmental impact statement shall nor-
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 197S

-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
                                                                   25237
mally precede the  final staff recom-
mendation and  that portion of the
public hearing related to the impact
study. In  appropriate  circumstances
the statement may  follow preliminary
hearings designed to gather informa-
tion for use in the statements.

§ 1502.6  Interdisciplinary preparation.
  Environmental  impact  statements
shall be prepared using an inter-disci-
plinary approach which will insure the
integrated use  of  the  natural  and
social sciences and  the environmental
design arts (section 102C2XA) of the
Act). The disciplines of the preparers
shall  be correlated to the scope and
issues identified in the scoping process
(§1501.7).

§ 1502.7  Page limits.
  The  text  of ^QMdfe environmental
impact  statement (e!g.. paragraphs
(d) through (g) of § 1502.10) shall nor-
mally be l«p(,.y^to  180 pager BJidTME
proposals flr-tnwstral  scope or conv
plexity shall normally be less than 300
pages.

§1502.8  Writing.
  Environmental  impact  statements
shall be written in plain  language and
may use appropriate graphics so that
they may be understood by decision-
makers   and  the  public.   Agencies
should employ writers of clear prose
or  editors to write,  review,  or  edit
statements, which will be based upon
the analysis and supporting data from
the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts.

§ 1502.9  Draft, final, and  supplemental
    statements.
  Except as provided in § 1506.8, envi-
ronmental impact statements shall be
prepared  in two stages  and may be
supplemented.
  (a)  Draft   environmental  impact
statements shall be prepared  in  ac-
cordance with the scope  decided upon
in  the   scoping  process.  The lead
agency shall work with the cooperat-
ing agencies and shall  obtain com-
ments as required in Part 1503. At the
time the draft statement is prepared it
must  fulfill and satisfy to the fullest
extent possible the requirements  es-
tablished  for final  statements in sec-
tion 102(2XC) of the Act. If a draft
statement is so inadequate as to pre-
clude meaningful analysis, the agency
shall  prepare and circulate a revised
draft  of the appropriate portion. In
the draft statement the agency shall
make every effort to disclose and dis-
cuss at appropriate  points in the text
all major points of view on the envi-
ronmental impacts of the alternatives
including the proposed action.
  (b)  Final   environmental  impact
statements shall respond to comments
as required in Part  1503. In the final
statement the agency shall discuss at
appropriate points in the text the exis-
tence of any responsible opposing view
not adequately discussed in the draft
statement and shall "indicate the agen-
cy's response to the issues raised.
  (c) Agencies:
  (1)  Shall prepare  supplements  to
either draft or  final environmental
impact statements if:
  (i)  The  agency makes  substantial
changes  in the  proposed action that
are  relevant  to  environmental con-
cerns; or
  (ii)  There are  significant  new  cir-
cumstances, relevant to environmental
concerns   (including    information),
bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts.
  (2)  May also  prepare supplements
when the agency determines that  the
purposes of the Act will be furthered
by doing so.
  (3) Shall adopt procedures for intro-
ducing a supplement into its  formal
administrative record, if such a record
exists.
  (4) Shall prepare, circulate, and  file
a supplement to a statement  in  the
same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as
a draft  statement unless  alternative
procedures are approved by the Coun-
cil.

§ 1502.10  Recommended format.
  Agencies shall use a format for envi-
ronmental impact  statements  which
will encourage good analysis and clear
presentation  of  the  alternatives  in-
cluding the proposed actions. The  fol-
lowing standard  format for environ-
mental impact statements should  be
followed  unless there is a compelling
reason to do otherwise:
  (a) Cover sheet
  (b) Summary
  (c) Table of Contents
  (d) Purpose of and Need for Action
  (e)  Alternatives Including Proposed
Action   (sees.    102(2)(C)(iii)   and
102(2)(E) of the Act).
  (f) Environmental Consequences  (es-
pecially  sees.  102(2KC)  (i), (ii), (iv),
and (v) of the Act.
  (g) Affected Environment.
  (h) List of Preparers.
  (i) List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons to Whom  Copies  of  the
Statement Are Sent.
  (j) Index.
  (k) Appendices (if any).
If a different  format is used, it shall
include paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (h), (i),
and  (j),  of this section and  shall in-
clude the substance of paragraphs  (d),
(e), (f), (g), and (k) of this section as
further described in §§ 1502.11-1502.18
in any appropriate format.

§ 1502.11  Cover sheet.
  The cover sheet shall not exceed one
page. It shall include:
  (a)  The  name  of  the  responsible
agencies including the lead agency and
any cooperating agencies.
  (b) The name of the proposed action
that is the subject of the statement
(and if appropriate the names of relat-
ed  cooperating  agency  actions),  to-
gether   with   the   State(s)   and
county(ies) (or the country if applica-
ble) where the action is located.
  (c)  The  name,  address,  and tele-
phone number of the person at the
agency who can supply further  infor-
mation.
  (d) A designation of the statement as
a draft, final, or draft or final supple-
ment.
  (e) A one paragraph abstract of the
statement.
  (f)  The  date  by which comments
must be received (computed in cooper-
ation with EPA § 1506.10)).

§ 1502.12  Summary.
  Each environmental  impact  state-
ment shall contain a summary which
adequately and accurately summarizes
the  statement.  The  summary  shall
stress the major conclusions, areas of
controversy (including issues raised by
agencies and  the public),  and the
issues  to be resolved  (including the
choice among  alternatives). The sum-
mary  will  normally  not  exceed  15
pages.

§ 1502.13  Purpose and need.
  The  statement  shall briefly specify
the underlying purpose  and need  to
which the agency is responding in pro-
posing  the action and alternatives.
Normally this  section shall not exceed
one page.

§1502.14  Alternatives  including the pro-
    posed action.
  This section  is the heart of the envi-
ronmental Impact statement. Based on
the information and analysis present-
ed in the sections on the Environmen-
tal  Consequences  (§ 1502.15)  and the
Affected Environment  (§1502.16),  i*»
                        fthus sharp-
ening the issues and providing a clear
basis for choice among options by the
decisionmaker and the public. In this
section agencies shall:
  (a) Rigorously explore and objective-
ly evaluate all reasonable alternatives,
and for alternatives which were elimi-
nated from detailed study, briefly dis-
cuss the reasons for such elimination.
  (b) Devote  substantial treatment  to
each alternative  considered in detail
including the proposed  action so  that
reviewers may evaluate the compara-
tive merits.
P9fcmttbtn the jurisdiction of the
  
-------
 25238
         PROPOSED RULES
the  alternative identified is for no
action, the agency shall also identify
the  alternative other than no action
that is environmentally preferable and
the reasons for identifying it.
  (f) Identify the  agency's preferred
alternative or  alternatives  if one  or
more exists in the draft statement and
identify  such  alternative(s)  in the
final statement  unless  another law
prohibits  the  expression  of such  a
preference.
  (g) Include appropriate mitigation
measures  not already included in the
proposed action or alternatives.

§ 1502.15  Environmental consequences.
  This section forms the scientific and
analytic  basis for  the   comparisons
under  § 1502.14.  It shall consolidate
the  discussions of  those elements re-
quired by sees. 102(2)(C)  (i), (ii), (iv),
and  (v) of NEPA which are within the
scope of the statement and as much of
sec.  102(2XC)(iii)  as is  necessary  to
support  the  comparisons.   This in-
cludes  the environmental impacts  of
the  proposed action and  alternatives,
any  adverse  environmental effects
which  cannot be  avoided should the
proposal be implemented, the relation-
ship between short-term uses of man's
environment  and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productiv-
ity,  and any irreversible  or  irretriev-
able commitments of resources which
would  be involved in  the  proposed
action  should it be implemented. The
Council intends  that preparers not
cause  duplication in the  discussions
under  § 1502.14 and this  section.  This
section shall include discussions of:
  (a) Direct effects and  their signifi-
cance (§1508.8).
  (b) Indirect effects and their signifi-
cance (§ 1508.8).
  (c) Possible conflicts between the
proposed action and the objectives  of
Federal, regional, State, and local land
use plans,  policies, and controls for the
area concerned.
  (d) The  environmental effects  of al-
ternatives  including  the   proposed
action.   The   comparisons   under
§ 1502.14 will be based on this discus-
sion.
  (e) Energy requirements and conser-
vation  potential of various alternatives
and mitigation measures.
  (f) Natural  or depletable resource re-
quirements and conservation potential
of various alternatives and mitigation
measures.
  (g) Means to mitigate adverse  envi-
ronmental impacts (if not  fully cov-
ered under § 1502.14(g)).

§ 1502.16 Affected environment.
  The  environmental impact  state-
ment shall succinctly describe the en-
vironment of the area or areas  to be
affected by the alternatives under con-
sideration. The descriptions shall be
no longer than Is necessary to under-
stand the effects of the alternatives.
Data and analyses in a statement shall
be commensurate with the importance
of the impact, with less important ma-
terial  summarized,  consolidated,   or
simply  referenced.   Agencies  shall
avoid useless bulk in statements and
shall concentrate effort and attention
on important  issues. Verbose  descrip-
tions of the affected environment  are
themselves no measure of the  adequa-
cy of an environmental impact state-
ment.

§ 1502.17  List of preparers.
  The  environmental  impact state-
ment shall  list the names, together
with their qualifications and profes-
sional disciplines (§ 1502.6 and 1502.8),
of the persons who were primarily re-
sponsible  for  preparing  the environ-
mental impact statement or significant
background papers,  including  basic
components of the statement. Where
possible the names of persons who are
responsible  for  a  particular analysis,
including   analyses   in  background
papers,  shall be identified.  Normally
the list will not exceed two pages.

§ 1502.18  Appendix.
  If  an  agency prepares  an appendix
to an environmental impact statment
the appendix shall:
  (a) Consist of material prepared in
connection  with  an  environmental
impact statement (as distinct from ma-
terial which is  not  so  prepared and
which  is  incorporated  by  reference
§1502.21)).
  (b)  Normally consist  of material
which substantiates any analysis fun-
damental to the impact statement.
  (c) Normally be analytic  and rele-
vant to the decision to be made.
  (d) Be circulated with the environ-
mental impact statement or be readily
available on request.

§ 1502.19  Circulation of the environmental
   impact statement.
  Agencies  shall circulate the entire
draft and final environmental impact
statements  except  as  provided   in
§ 1502.18(d)  and 1503.4(c). However, if
the statement  is unusually  long,  the
agency may circulate the summary in-
stead, except  that the entire state-
ment shall be furnished to:
  (a> Any Federal agency which has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with  respect  to any environmental
impact involved and any appropriate
Federal, State or local agency  author-
ized  to  develop and enforce environ-
mental standards.
  (b)  Any  person,  organization,   or
agency requesting the entire environ-
mental impact statement.
  (c) In the case of a final environmen-
tal impact statement any person, orga-
nization, or agency  which submitted
substantive comments on the draft.
  If  the agency circulates  the sum-
mary and thereafter receives a timely
request for the  entire statement, the
time for comment for that requestor
only shall be extended by at least 15
days beyond the minimum period.

§1502.20  Tiering.
  Agencies are encouraged to tier their
environmental  impact  statements to
eliminate repetitive discussions of the
same issues and  to focus on the actual
issues ripe for decision at each level of
environmental    review   (§ 1508.26).
Whenever  a  broad   environmental
impact  statement has been  prepared
(such as a program  or policy  state-
ment) and a subsequent statement or
environmental assessment is then pre-
pared on an action included within the
entire  program  or  policy  (such  as  a
site  specific  action)  the  subsequent
statement  or  environmental  assess-
ment need only*summarize the  issues
discussed in  the  broader statement
and  incorporate such discussions by
reference and shall concentrate on the
issues   specific  to  the   subsequent
action. Tiering may also be appropri-
ate  for  different stages  of  actions.
(Section 1508.26).)

§ 1502.21  Incorporation by reference.
  Agencies shall incorporate material
into  an  environmental impact  state-
ment by reference when to do so will
cut down on  bulk  without  impeding
agency and public review of the action.
The  incorporated material  shall  be
cited in the statement and its content
briefly described. No material may be
incorporated  by reference  unless it  is
reasonably available for inspection by
potentially interested  persons within
the time allowed for comment. Materi-
al based on proprietary data which  is
itself not available for review and com-
ment shall not be incorporated by ref-
erence.

§ 1502.22  Incomplete or unavailable infor-
   mation.
  Agencies dealing with gaps in rele-
vant information including  scientific
uncertainty, shall always  make clear
that  such  information is  lacking or
that  uncertainty exists.
  (a) If the information is  essential to
a reasoned choice among alternatives
and is not known and  the  costs of ob-
taining   it  are  not  exorbitant,  the
agency  shall  include  the  information
in the  environmental impact  state-
ment.
  (b) If the information is important
to the  decision and  the means to
obtain  it are  not  known (e.g.,  the
means for obtaining it are  beyond the
state of the  art)  the agency shall
weigh the need  for the action against
the risk and severity  of possible ad-
verse impacts were the action to pro-
ceed in  the face of uncertainty.  If the
agency  proceeds,  it  shall  include  a
worst case analysis.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
                                                                                                    25239
 § 1^02.23  Cost-benefit analysis.
   Of a cost-benefit analysis is being
 considered for the- proposed action, it
 shall be  incorporated by reference or
 appended to the statement as an aid in
 evaluating the  environmental conse-
 quences.  To  assess  the adequacy of
 compliance- with sec.  102(2XB) of the
 Act the statement shall when a cost-
 benefit analysis is prepared discuss the
 relationship between that analysis and
 any analyses of unquantif led environ-
 mental impacts, values, and amenities.

 § 1502.24  Methodology and scientific accu-
     racy.
   Agencies shall insure the profession-
 al/including scientific, integrity of the
 discussions and analyses  in environ-
 mental impact statements. They  shall
 identify any  methodologies  used and
 shall make explicit reference by  foot-
 note  to  the  scientific   and  other
 sources relied upon for conclusions in
 the statement.
    \
 § 1502.25  Environmental review and con-
     sultation requirements.
   To the fullest extent possible, agen-
 cies shall prepare draft environmental
 impact statements concurrently  with
 and  integrated with  environmental
 impact analyses and related surveys
 and studies required by the Fish and
 Wildlife  Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
 Sec. 661 et seq.) the National Historic
 Preservation  Act  of  1966 (16 U.S.C.
 Sec. 470 et seq.), the Endangered Spe-
 cies Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Sec.  1531 et
 seq.)  and other  environmental review
 laws.
 Sec.
 1503.1
 1503.2
 1503.3
 1503.4
 PART 1503—COMMENTING


Inviting Comments.
Duty to Comment.
Specificity of Comments.
Response to Comments.
   AUTHORITY: NEPA,  the  Environmental
 Quality  Improvement  Act  of  1970,  as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), Section
 309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
 U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
 Protection  and  Enhancement ot Environ-
 mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
 by Executive Order 11991, May 24,1977).

 § J 503.1  Inviting comments.
   (a) After preparing a draft environ-
 mental  impact statement and before
 preparing   a   final  environmental
 impact statement the agency shall:
   (1) Obtain the comments of any Fed-
 eral agency which has jurisdiction by
 law or special expertise with respect to
 any environmental impact involved or
 which is authorized to develop and en-
 force environmental standards.
.   (2) Request the comments of appro-
 priate State and  local agencies which
 are authorized to develop and enforce
 environmental   standards,   or  any
 agency which has requested that it re-
                                ceive statements on actions of the kind
                                proposed.
                                  (3)  Request comments  from  the
                                public,  affirmatively  soliciting  com-
                                ments from those persons or organiza-
                                tions who may be interested or affect-
                                ed.
                                  (b) After preparing a final environ-
                                mental  impact statement an  agency
                                may request  comments on  it before
                                the decision is finally made. In  any
                                case other  agencies or persons may
                                make comments before the final deci-
                                sion unless a different time is provided
                                under § 1506.10.

                                § 1503.2  Duty to comment.
                                                       jurisdiction by
                                                      with respect to
                                any environmental  impact involved or
                                which are  authorized  to  develop  and
                                enforce environmental standards.
                                        igency m~Hy (and a cooperat-
                                ing agency  that  is satisfied that  its
                                views are adequately reflected in the
                                environmental    impact   statement
                                would) reply that it has no1 comment.

                                § 1503.3  Specificity of comments.
                                  Comments on  an   environmental
                                impact  statement or  on a proposed
                                action shall be as specific as possible
                                mnl map r>*hi hy  MlliNM tlir nilffinimy
                    the
                                                          tttft-Ol tiM
                                                                   a
commenting agency  criticizes a lead
agency's predictive methodology, the
commenting agency  should  describe
the alternative methodology which it
prefers and why.

S 1503.4  Response to comments.
  (a) An agency preparing a final envi-
ronmental  impact  statement   shall
assess and consider comments both in-
dividually  and collectively, and  shall
respond by one or more of the means
listed below specifying its  response in
the final statement. Possible responses
are to:
  (1) Modify the proposed action.
  (2)  Develop  and evaluate  alterna-
tives not previously given serious con-
sideration by the agency.
  (3) Supplement, improve, or modify
its analyses.
  (4) Make factual corrections.
  (5) Explain why the comments  do
not warrant further agency response,
citing the sources, authorities, or rea-
sons which support the agency's posi-
tion and, if appropriate, indicate those
circumstances  which would trigger
agency  reappraisal   or further re-
sponse.
  (b)  All  substantive comments re-
ceived on the draft statement (or sum-
maries thereof where  the response has
been    exceptionally   voluminous),
should be attached to the  final state-
ment whether or not the comment  is
thought to merit  individual discussion
                                       by the agency in the text of the state-
                                       ment.
                                         (c) If changes are minor and are con-
                                       fined to the responses described  in
                                       paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this sec-
                                       tion,  agencies  may  write  them on
                                       errata sheets and attach them to the
                                       statement  instead  of rewriting the
                                       draft statement.  In such  cases  only
                                       the comments, the responses, and the
                                       changes and  not the final statement
                                       need  be circulated  (§1502.19).  The
                                       entire  document with a  new  cover
                                       sheet shall be filed as the final state-
                                       ment (§ 1506.9).
PART 1504—PREDECISION REFERRALS TO THE
  COUNCIL OF PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTIONS
  FOUND  TO  BE  ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSA-
  TISFACTORY

Sec.
1504.1  Purpose.
1504.2  Criteria for Referral.
1504.3  Procedure for Referrals and Re-
   sponse.
  AUTHORITY:  NEPA,  the  Environmental
Quality  Improvement  Act of  1970,   as
amended  (42 U.S.C. 4371 'et seq.), Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended  (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24.1977).

§ 1504.1  Purpose.
  (a) This part establishes procedures
for referring to the Council Federal
interagency disagreements concerning
proposed major Federal  actions that
might cause unsatisfactory  environ-
mental effects. It provides means for
early  resolution  of  such  disagree-
ments.
  (b) Under  section 309  of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7609), the Adminis-
trator of the  Environmental  Protec-
tion Agency  is directed to review and
comment publicly on the environmen-
tal impacts  of Federal  activities,  in-
cluding actions for which environmen-
tal impact statements are prepared.  If
after this review the Administrator de-
termines that  the matter is "unsatis-
factory from the standpoint of public
health or welfare or environmental
quality," section 309 directs that the
matter  be  referred  to   the  Council
(hereafter "environmental referrals").
  (c) Ifcrtft^ HMttoB-aeacZMC* ot ,-the
Aot ather-FeJeial ageiielea may make
ohnlla*   Feviowft.  of  environments*
impact  statements,  including Judgr-
m«Qifc-oa the  acceptability of antici-
pated,  environmental irr>p«K»tj. These
rasiewa must be made available to th*
OMitlmt trio fniinril aB*the-pabHc.

§ 1504.2 Criteria for referral.
  Environmental referrals should only
be made  to the Council after concert-
ed, timely (as early as.possible in the
process),  but unsuccessful attempts to
resolve   differences  with  the  lead
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 197S

-------
25240
         PROPOSED RULES
agency. In determining what environ-
mental objections to the  matter are
appropriate to refer to the Council, an
agency should weigh potential adverse
environmental impacts, considering:
  (a) Possible violation of national en-
vironmental standards or policies.
  (b) Severity.
  (c) Geographical scope.
  (d) Duration.
  (e) Importance as precedents.
  (f)  Availability  of  environmentally
preferable alternatives.

§ 1504.3 Procedure  for referrals  and  re-
    sponse.
  (a) A Federal agency making the  re-
ferral to the Council shall:
  (1)  Advise the lead agency  at the
earliest possible time that it intends to
refer  a matter to the Council unless a
satisfactory agreement is reached.
  (2) Include such advice in the refer-
ring agency's comments on the  draft
environmental    impact   statement,
except when the  statement does not
contain   adequate  information  to
permit an assessment  of the matter's
environmental acceptability.
  (3)  Identify any essential informa-
tion that  is lacking and request that it
be made available at the earliest possi-
ble time.
  (4) Send copies of such advice to the
Council.
  (b) The referring agency shall deliv-
er its referral to the Council not later
than  twenty-five (25)  days after the
final environmental impact statement
has been  made  available to the Envi-
ronmental Protection  Agency,  com-
menting  agencies, and  the  public.
Except when  an  extension  of this
period has been granted  by the lead
•agency, the council will not accept a
referral after that date.
  (c) The  referral shall consist of:
  (DA copy of the letter signed by the
head of the referring agency and deliv-
ered to the lead agency informing the
lead agency  of  the referral and the
reasons for it, and requesting that no
action be taken  to  implement the
matter until the Council acts upon the
referral.  The letter  shall include a
copy  of the  statement referred  to in
§ 1504.3(0(2) below.
  (2) A statement supported by factual
evidence  leading  to   the  conclusion
that the matter is unsatisfactory from
the standpoint of public health or wel-
fare  or  environmental  quality. The
statement shall:
  (i)  Identify any material facts  in
controversy and incorporate (by refer-
ence if appropriate) agreed upon facts,
  (ii)   Identify  any existing environ-
mental requirements or policies which
would be violated by the matter,
  (iii)  Present the reasons the refer-
ring agency believes the matter is envi-
ronmentally unsatisfactory,
  (iv) Contain a finding by the agency
whether the issue raised is one of  na-
tional  importance  because  of  the
threat to national environmental re-
sources or policies or for some other
reason,
  (v) Review the steps taken by the re-
ferring agency to bring its concerns to
the attention of the lead agency at the
earliest possible time, and
  (vi) Give the referring agency's  rec-
ommendations as to what mitigation
alternative, further study, or  other
course of action (including abandon-
ment of  the matter) are necessary to
remedy the situation.
  (d) Not later than twenty-five  (25)
days after the referral to the Council,
the lead agency may deliver a response
to  the  Council  and the referring
agency. If the lead agency requests
more time and  gives  assurance that
the matter will not go forward in the
interim, the Council may grant an ex-
tension. The response shall:
  (1) Address fully the issues raised in
the referral.
  (2) Be supported by evidence.
  (3) Give the lead  agency's response
to the  referring agency's recommenda-
tions.
  (e) Not later than twenty-five  (25)
days after receipt of both the referral
and  any response or upon being in-
formed that there will be no response
(unless the lead agency  agrees  to  a
longer time),  the Council  may  take
one or more of the following actions:
  (1) Conclude that  the process of re-
ferral  and response has  successfully
resolved the problem.
  (2)  Initiate discussions  with  the
agencies  with  the objective of media-
tion with referring and lead agencies.
  (3) Hold public meetings  or hearings
to obtain additional views and infor-
mation.
  (4) Determine  that the issue  is not
one  of national  importance  and re-
quest the referring and lead agencies
to pursue their decision process.
  (5) Determine  that the issue should
be further negotiated by the referring
and lead agencies and is not appropri-
ate for Council consideration until one
or more heads of  agencies report to
the  Council  that  the  agencies'  dis-
agreements are irreconcilable.
  (6) Publish its findings and recom-
mendations (including where appropri-
ate a finding that the submitted evi-
dence does not support the position of
an agency).
  (7) When appropriate, submit the re-
ferral  and the response together with
the Council's recommendation to the
President for action.
     PART 1505—NEPA AND AGENCY
           DECISIONMAKING
Sec.
1505.1  Agency decisionmaking procedures.
1505.2  Record of decision in those cases re-
   quiring  environmental  impact  state-
   ments.
1505.3  Implementing the decision.
 AUTHORITY: NEPA,  the  Environmental
Quality  Improvement  Act  of  1970, ,as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), section 309
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857h-7>, and Executive Order 11514, Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991, May 24, 1977).

§ 1501.1  Agency   decisionmaking  proce-
   dures.
 Agencies  shall   adopt  procedures
(§1507.3) to ensure that decisions are
made in accordance with the policies
and purposes of the Act. Such proce-
dures shall include but not be limited
to:
 (a)  Implementing  procedures under
section  102(2) to achieve the require-
ments of sections 101 and 102(1).
 (b)  Designating the major decison
points for the  agency's principal pro-
grams likely  to  have  a  singificant
effect on the human environment and
assuring that the NEPA process corre-
sponds with them.
 (c) Requiring that relevant  environ-
mental documents, comments, and re-
sponses be part of the record in formal
rulemaking or  adjudicatory proceed-
ings,
 (d)  Requiring that relevant  environ-
mental documents, comments, and re-
sponses   accompany  the  proposal
through existing agency review proc-
ess so that agency officials  use  the
statement in making decisions.
 (e)  Requiring that the alternatives
considered by the decision  maker are
encompassed by the range of alterna-
tives discussed in the relevant environ-
mental  documents  and that the  deci-
sionmaker consider  the alternatives
described in the environmental impact
statement. If  another decision docu-
ment accompanies the relevant envi-
ronmental documents to the decision-
maker,  agencies  are encouraged  to
make available to the public before
the decision is  made any part of that
document thab  relates to the compari-
son of alternatives.

§ 1505.2  Record  of decision in those cases
   requiring environmental impact state-
   ments.

 At the same time of its decision (or,
if appropriate,  its recommendation to
Congress) each agency shall prepare a
concise  public record of  decision. The
record, which may be integrated into
any  other record prepared  by  the
agency,  including  that   required  by
OMB Circular  A-95, part I, sections 6
(c) and (d), and part II, section 5(b)(4),
shall  state:
 (a) What the  decision was.
 (b)  If an  alternative  other  than
those    designated   pursuant    to
§ 1502.14(e) has been selected, the rea-
sons why other specific considerations
of national policy overrode those alter-
natives.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
                                                                    25241
  (c) Whether all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm
have  been adopted, and  if not, why
they  were not.  For any mitigation
adopted, a  monltortnr and enforce-
ment program where applicable shall
be adopted and summarized.

§ 1505.3  Implementing the decision.
  Agencies may provide for monitoring
to assure that their decisions are car-
ried out and should do so in important
cases.  Mitigation  (§1505.2(0)  and
other  conditions  established  in  or
during the review of the environmen-
tal impact statement and committed
as part of the decision shall be Imple-
mented  by  the  appropriate  agency.
The lead agency shall:
  (a) Include appropriate conditions in
grants, permits or other approvals.
  (b) Condition funding of actions on
initigation.
  (c) Upon request, inform cooperating
or commenting agencies on progress in
carrying out mitigation measures pro-
posed by any such agency and adopted
by the agency  making the decision.
  (d) Upon request, make available to
the public the results of relevant mon-
itoring.
 PART 1506—OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA

Sec.
1506.1 Limitations on actions during NEPA
   process.
1506.2 Elimination  of  duplication  with
   State and local procedures.
1506.3 Adoption.
1506.4 Combining documents.
1506.5 Agency responsibility.
1506.6 Public Involvement.
1506.7 Further guidance.
1506.8 Proposals for legislation.
1506.9 Filing requirements.
1506.10 Timing of agency action.
1506.11 Emergencies.
1506.12 Effective date.
  AUTHORITY: NEPA, the  Environmental
Quality  Improvement  Act  of 1970,  as
amended (42 U.8.C.  4371 et seq.).  Section
309 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514,
Protection  and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended
by Executive Order 11991, May 24,1977).

§ 1506.1  Limitations  on  actions  during
    NEPA process.
  (a) Until an agency issues a record of
decision as provided in § 1505.2 (except
as  provided  in subsection  (c)), no
action concerning  the proposal shall
be taken which would:
  (1) Have an  adverse environmental
impact; or
  (2) Limit the choice of reasonable al-
ternatives.
  (b) If any agency is considering an
application from a non-Federal  entity,
and is  aware that the applicant is
planning to take an action within the
agency's jurisdiction that would meet
either of the  criteria  in  § 1506.1(a),
then the agency shall promptly notify
the applicant that the agency will take
appropriate action to insure thatthe
objectives  and procedures  of NEPA
are achieved.
  '(c) While work on a required pro-
gram environmental impact statement
is in progress and the action is not cov-
ered by an  existing program  state-
ment, agencies shall not undertake in
the interim any major Federal action
which  may  significantly  affect  the
quality  of the human  environment
and which is covered by the program
unless such action:
  (1) Is  justified independently of the
program;
  (2) Will not  prejudice the ultimate
decision  on   the  program.  Interim
action prejudices the ultimate decision
on the program when it tends to deter-
mine subsequent development or limit
alternatives; and
  (3) Is  itself accompanied by an ade-
quate  environmental  impact  state-
ment.

§ 1506.2  Elimination  of  duplication with
    State and local procedures.
  (a) Agencies authorized by law to co-
operate   with  State   agencies   of
statewide jurisdiction pursuant to sec-
tion 102(2)(D) of the Act may do so.
  (b)  Agencies shall cooperate  with
State and local agencies to the fullest
extent possible to reduce duplication
in NEPA  and  comparable State  and
local  requirements,  unless they are
specifically barred from doing  so by
some other  law.  Except where an
agency  is proceeding in the  manner
specified by paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, such cooperation shall to the ful-
lest extent possible include:
  (1) Joint planning processes.
  (2)  Joint  environmental  research
and studies.
  (3)  Joint public  hearings  (except
where otherwise provided by statute).
  (4) Joint environmental assessments
and joint environmental impact state-
ments. In such cases one or more Fed-
eral agencies and one or more State or
local agencies shall be joint lead agen-
cies. Where State laws or local  ordin-
ances  have   environmental  impact
statement requirements in addition to
but  not in  conflict with those  in
NEPA, Federal agencies shall cooper-
ate in fulfilling the requirements of
those as well as Federal laws so that
one document will comply with all ap-
plicable laws.
  (c) To better integrate environmen-
tal  impact statements  into state  or
local  planning processes,  statements
shall discuss any inconsistency  of  a
proposed  action  with any approved
State or local plan and laws (whether
or not federally sanctioned).

§ 1506.3  Adoption.
  (a) An agency may adopt a Federal
draft  or final  environmental impact
statement or portion thereof provided
that the agency treats the statement
as a draft and recirculates it (except as
provided below in paragraph (b)  of
this section): And provided, That the
statement or portions  thereof meets
the standards  for an  adequate draft
statement under these regulations.
  (b) A cooperating agency may adopt
without recirculating the  environmen-
tal impact statement of a lead agency
when,  after an independent review of
the statement,  the cooperating agency
concludes that  its comments and sug-
gestions have been satisfied.
  (c) When  an  agency adopts a state-
ment which is not final  within the
agency that prepared it, or when the
action it assesses is the subject of a re-
ferral  under part 1504, or when the
statement's  adequacy is the subject of
a judicial action which is not final, the
agency shall so  specify.

§ 1506.4  Combining documents.
  Any   environmental  document  in
compliance  with NEPA may  be com-
bined  with  any  other agency docu-
ment to reduce duplication and paper-
work.

§ 1506.5  Agency  responsibility.
  (a) If an agency relies  on an appli-
cant to  submit initial  environmental
information, the agency should assist
the applicant by outlining the types of
information required. In all cases, the
agency should  make its  own evalua-
tion of the  environmental issues and
take responsibility  for the  scope and
content of environmental  assessments.
  (b) Except as provided in §§ 1506.2
and 1506.3 any environmental impact
statement prepared pursuant to the
requirements of  NEPA shall be pre-
pared directly by or under contract to
the lead agency or where appropriate
under    § 1501.6(b),   a   cooperating
agency. In the case of such contract it
is the intent of these regulations that
the' contractor be chosen solely by the
lead agency or by the lead agency in
cooperation with cooperating agencies
or where appropriate by a cooperating
agency to avoid any conflict of inter-
est. Contractors shall execute  a disclo-
sure statement prepared  by the  lead
agency or where appropriate the coop-
erating agency specifying that  they
have no  financial or other interest in
the outcome of the project. If  the doc-
ument is prepared by contract, the re-
sponsible Federal official shall furnish
guidance and participate in the prepa-
ration  and shall independently evalu-
ate the statement prior to its approval.
Nothing in this section is intended to
prohibit  any agency from requesting
any person to submit information to it
or any person  from submitting infor-
mation to any agency.

§ 1506.6  Public involvement.
  Agencies   shall:  (a)  Make  diligent
effort to involve the public in prepar-
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
25242
         PROPOSED RULES
Ing and implementing their NEPA pro-
cedures.
  (b) Provide public notice of NEPA-
related hearings,  meetings,  and the
availability  of  environmental  docu-
ments  by means calculated to inform
those persons and agencies who may
be interested or affected.
  (I) In all cases the agency shall mail
notice  to those who  have requested it
on an individual action.
  (2) In the case of an action with ef-
fects of national concern such notice
shall include publication in the FEDER-
AL REGISTER and notice by mail to na-
tional  organizations with  interest  in
the matter and may include listing in
the 102 Monitor.
  (3) In the case of an action with ef-
fects primarily  of local concern the
notice may include:
  (i) Notice to State and local agencies
pursuant to OMB Circular A-95.
  (ii) Following the affected State's
public  notice procedures for compara-
ble actions.
  (ill) Publication in local newspapers
(in  papers   of  general  circulation
rather than legal papers).
  (iv)  Notice  through  other  local
media.
  (v) Notice to  potentially interested
community   organizations  including
small business associations.
  (vi) Publication  in newsletters that
may be expected to  reach  potentially
interested persons.
  (vii) Direct mailing to owners and oc-
cupants of nearby or affected proper-
ty.
  (viii) Posting of notice on and off
site in  the area where the action is to
be located.
  (c) Hold or sponsor public hearings
or public meetings whenever appropri-
ate.  Criteria  shall  include  whether
there is:
  (1) Substantial environmental con-
troversy   concerning  the   proposed
action  or substantial interest in hold-
ing the hearing.
  (2) A request for  a hearing by an-
other  agency with  jurisdiction  over
the action supported by reasons why a
hearing will be helpful.
  (d) Solicit appropriate information
from the public.
  (e) Explain in its procedures where
interested persons can get information
or status reports on  environmental
impact statements and other elements
of the NEPA process.
  (f)   Make   environmental  impact
statements,  the  comments  received,
and any  underlying documents availa-
ble to  the public pursuant to the pro-
visions of the Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C. 552), without regard to
the exclusion of intra- or interagency
memoranda where  such memoranda
transmit comments  of  Federal  agen-
cies on the • environmental impact  of
the proposed action.
§ 1506.7  Further guidance.
 The  Council may provide  further
guidance  concerning  NEPA and its
procedures including:
 (a) A handbook which the Council
may supplement from  time to time
which  shall  in plain language provide
guidance and  instructions concerning
the application  of NEPA  and these
regulations.
 (b)   Publication  of  the  Council's
Memoranda to Heads of Agencies.
 (c) In conjunction with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and  the
publication of the 102 Monitor, notice
of:
 (1) Research activities;
 (2) Meetings and conferences related
to NEPA; and
 (3) Successful and innovative proce-
dures used by agencies to  implement
NEPA.

§ 1506.8  Proposals for legislation.
 The NEPA process for proposals for
legislation (§ 1508.16) significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human envi-
ronment shall be integrated with the
legislative process of the Congress. A
legislative environmental impact state-
ment  is the  detailed statement re-
quired by  law which shall accompany
proposed legislation to  the Congress.
Preparation of a  legislative environ-
mental impact statement shall include
consultation with appropriate agencies
(which may be pursuant to  OMB Cir-
cular A-19)  and conform with the re-
quirements of these regulations except
as follows:
 (a)  There need not  be   a  scoping
process.
 (b) The legislative  statement shall
otherwise  be  treated  in   the  same
manner as a draft statement except as
further specified. There need not be a
final environmental impact statement:
Provided,  That when any  of the fol-
lowing conditions exist both the draft
and final environmental impact state-
ment on the legislative proposal shall
be prepared and circulated as provided
by sections 1503.1 and 1506.10.
 (DA Congressional Committee with
jurisdiction  over the  proposal has a
rule requiring both draft and final en-
vironmental impact statements.
 (2)  The proposal results from a
study  process  required  by  statute
(such  as those required by the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.  1271
et  seq.) and the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. et seq.)).
 (3) Legislative approval is sought for
Federal or federally assisted construc-
tion  or other  projects  which  the
agency recommends be located at spe-
cific geographic locations. For propos-
als requiring an environmental impact
statement for the acquisition of space
by  the General Services 'Administra-
tion, a draft statement shall accompa-
ny the Prospectus or the 1Kb) Report
of Building or  the 1Kb)  Report  of
Building Project Surveys  to the Con-
gress, and  a  final statement shall be
completed before site acquisition.
  (4) The  agency  decides  to  prepare
draft and final istatements.
  (c)  Comments   on   the legislative
statement  shall be given  to  the  lead
agency  which shall  forward them
along with its own responses  to the
Congressional committees  with juris-
diction.
  (d)  The  Environmental Protection
Agency may  reduce  the  period  for
review required by § 1506.10 to insure
that comments; and responses  are re-
ceived by the appropriate Congression-
al committee prior to hearings on the
proposal.

§ 1506.9  Filing requirements.
  Environmental   impact   statements
together with comments and responses
shall be filed with the Environmental
Protection  Agency, attention Office of
Federal  Activities (A-104),   401  M
Street SW.,  Washington,  D.C. 20460.
Statements shall be filed with EPA no
earlier than they are  also transmitted
to  commenting   agencies  and  the
public. EPA  shall  deliver  one copy of
each statement to the Council, which
shall satisfy  the requirement of avail-
ability to the President.

§ 1506.10  Timing of agency action.
  (a)  No  decision on  the proposed
action  shall  be   made  or  recorded
under  § 1505.2 by  a  Federal  agency
until the later of the following dates:
  (1)  Ninety (90)  days after  publica-
tion of the notice described in para-
graph (d) of this section for a draft en-
vironmental impact statement.
  (2) Thirty (30) days  after publication
of the notice described in paragraph
(d) of this  section for a final environ-
mental impact statement.

Provided,  Tha.t when an agency has
formally   established  an   internal
appeal process;, through which agen-
cies or the public may take appeals
and make their  views known after
preparation of the final environmental
impact statement, and which provides
a real opportunity to alter the  deci-
sion,  an  administratively reviewable
decision in the  proposed action may be
made after publication of the notice
described in paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion for  a  final environmental impact
statement.  This means that the period
for appeal, and the period prescribed
by paragraph  (a)(2)  of  this  section
may run concurrently. In such a case
the  environmental impact statement
shall explain the timing and the pub-
lic's right of appeal.
Provided further, That when an agen-
cy's primary purpose  is the protection
of  public   health and  safety,   the
agency may, with the approval of the
Council,   adopt   procedures  under
§ 1507.3 providing for a finding to be
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
                                                                    25243
published  in the  FEDERAL  REGISTER
that it is necessary to waive the time
requirement specified  in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section to preserve public
health and safety.
Provided further, That when an agen-
cy's primary purpose  is the protection
of public health and  safety and when
•that agency publishes proposed rules
in the FEDERAL REGISTER for a period
of public review prescribed by a stat-
ute the agency administers, that time
period  and the   period prescribed
under paragraph 
-------
25244
         PROPOSED RULES
  (2) Specific criteria for and identifi-
cation  of  those  typical  classes  of
action:
  (i) Which normally do require envi-
ronmental impact statements.
  (ii)  Which normally do not require
either an environmental impact state-
ment or an environmental assessment
(categorical exclusions (§ 1508.4)).
  (ill) Which  normally require  envi-
ronmental  assessments but not  neces-
sarily  environmental impact  state-
ments.
  (c) Agency procedures may include
specific criteria for  providing' limited
exceptions  to  the provisions of these
regulations for proposed actions that
are specifically authorized under crite-
ria established by an Executive  Order
or statute to be kept secret in the in-
terest of national defense or foreign
policy and  are in fact properly  classi-
fied pursuant to such Executive  Order
or statute. Environmental assessments
and environmental impact statements
which address classified proposals may
be  safeguarded and restricted  from
public  dissemination  in  accordance
with agencies' own regulations applica-
ble to  classified  information.  These
documents  may be organized so that
classified portions can be included as
annexes, in order that the unclassified
portions can be made available to the
public.
  (d)  Agency procedures may provide
for periods of  time  other than those
presented in § 1506.10 when necessary
to comply with other specific statuto-
ry requirements.
   PART 1508—TERMINOLOGY AND INDEX

Sec.
1508.1  Terminology.
1508.2  Act.
1508.3  Affecting.
1508.4  Categorical Exclusion.
1508.5  Cooperating Agency.
1508.6  Council.
1508.7  Cumulative Impact.
1508.8  Effects.
1508.9  Environmental Assessment.
1508.10 Environmental Document.
1508.11 Environmental Impact Statement.
1508.12 Federal Agency.
1508.13 Finding of No Significant Impact.
1508.14 Human Environment.
1508.15 Lead Agency.
1508.16 Legislation.
1508.17 Major Federal Action.
1508.18 Matter.
1508.19 Mitigation.
1508.20 NEPA Process.
1508.21 Notice of Intent.
1508.22 Proposal.
1508.23 Referring Agency.
1508.24 Scope.
1508.25 Significantly.
1508.26 Tiering.

  AUTHORITY: NEPA, the  Environmental
Quality  Improvement  Act  of  1970,  as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seg.t. Section 309
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857h-7), and Executive Order 11514, Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality (March 5, 1970, as amended by Ex-
ecutive Order 11991, May 24,1977).
§ 1508.1  Terminology.
  The  terminology of this part shall
be  uniform throughout the  Federal
Government.

§ 1508.2  Act.
  "Act" means the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, as amended  (42
U.S.C.  4321, et seq.) which is also re-
ferred  to as "NEPA."

§ 1508.3  Affecting.
  "Affecting" means will or may have
an effect on.

§ 1508.4  Categorical exclusion.
  "Categorical Exclusion" means a cat-
egory of actions which do not individ-
ually or cumulatively have a  signifi-
cant effect on the human environment
and which have been found to have no
such effect in procedures adopted by a
Federal agency in  implementation of
these  regulations  (§ 1507.3) and  for
which, therefore, neither an environ-
mental assessment nor an environmen-
tal  impact is needed.  Any such proce-
dures shall provide for extraordinary
circumstances in which a normally ex-
cluded action may have a significant
environmental effect.

§ 1508.5 Cooperating agency.
  "Cooperating  Agency"  means any
Federal  agency  other than  a lead
agency which has jurisdiction by law
or  special expertise  with respect  to
any environmental impact involved In
a proposal (or a  reasonable  alterna-
tive) for  legislation  or  other  major
Federal action significantly  affecting
the  quality  of the  human environ-
ment.  The selection  and responsibil-
ities of a cooperating agency  are de-
scribed in §1501.6. A State or local
agency of similar qualifications or,
when the effects are on a reservation,
an  Indian Tribe may by agreement
with the lead agency become a cooper-
ating agency.

§ 1508.6 Council.
  "Council" means the Council on En-
vironmental  Quality  established by
Title II of the Act.

§ 1508.7  Cumulative impact.
  "Cumulative impact" is the  impact
on  the  environment which  results
from the  incremental impact  of  the
action  when added to other past, pres-
ent, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of  what  agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person un-
dertakes such other actions. Cumula-
tive impacts  can result  from individ-
ually minor but collectively significant
actions taking place over a period of
time.

§ 1508.8 Effects.
  "Effects" include:
  (a) Direct effects, which are caused
by  the action and  occur at the same
time and place.
  (b) Indirect effects, which are caused
by the action and are later in time or
farther removed in distance, but are
still  reasonably foreseeable.  Indirect
effects may include growth inducing
effects and other effects related to in-
duced changes  in  the pattern of land
use, population density or growth rate,
and related effects  on  air  and water
and other natural systems, including
ecosystems.
Effects and impacts as used in these
regulations  are synonymous.  Effects
includes ecological (such as  the effects
on natural resources and on the com-
ponents, structures, and functioning
of  affected  ecosystems),  economic,
social,  or health, whether direct, indi-
rect, or cumulative. Effects may  also
include those resulting from  actions
which  may have both  beneficial  and
detrimental effects, even if  on balance
the agency believes that the effect will
be beneficial.

§ 1508.9  Environmental assessment
  "Environmental Assessment":
  (a)  Means a  public  document for
which  a Federal agency is responsible
that serves to:
  (1)  Briefly  provide  sufficient  evi-
dence  and  analysis for determining
whether to prepare an environmental
impact  statement or a finding of no
significant impact.
  (2) Aid an agency's compliance with
the  Act  when  no   environmental
impact statement is necessary.
  (3) Facilitate  preparation of such a
statement when one is necessary.
  (b) Shall include brief discussions of
the need for the proposal,  of alterna-
tives as required by sec.  102(2)(E), of
the environmental impacts  of the pro-
posed  action and alternatives,  and a
listing of agencies and persons consult-
ed. Most environmental impacts of the
proposed  action and alternatives, and
a listing of agencies and persons  con-
sulted.  Most  environmental  assess-
ments  do not exceed several pages in,
length.

§ 1508.10  Environmental document
  "Environmental Document" includes
the documents  specified in §§ 1508.9,
1508.11, 1508.13  and 1508.21.

§1508.11  Environmental impact statement
  "Environmenta.1 Impact Statement"
means a detailed written statement as
required by Sec. 102(2)(C) of the  Act.

§ 1508.12  Federal agency.
  "Federal agency" means all agencies
of the  Federal  Government. It does
not mean the Congress, the Judiciary,
or the  President, including the  per-
formance of staff functions for the
President in his  Executive Office.

§ 1508.13  Finding of no significant impact.
  "Finding of No Significant Impact"
means  a  document  by  a  Federal
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO.  112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
                                                                    25245
 agency briefly presenting the reasons
 why an action, not otherwise excluded
 (§ 1508.4), will not have a significant
 effect on the human environment and
 for which an environmental  impact
 statement  therefore wiD not be  pre-
 pared.  It shall include the environ-
 mental assessment or a summary of it
 and shall note any other environmen-
 tal    documents    related   to    it
 (§ 1501.7(a)(5».

 S 1508.14 Human environment
  "Human Environment" shall be in-
 terpreted comprehensively to include
 the natural and physical environment
 and the  interaction of people  with
 that environment. (See the definition
 of  "effects"  (§1508.8).) This  means
 that exclusively economic or social ef-
 fects  are not  intended by themselves
 to require preparation of an environ-
 mental impact  statement.  When an
 environmental  impact  statement  is
 prepared -and economic or social  and
 natural or physical  environmental ef-
 fects  are interrelated, then  the envi-
 ronmental impact statement will  dis-
 cuss all of these effects on the human-
 environment.

 §1508.15 Lead agency.
  "Lead Agency" means the agency or
 agencies which have prepared or have
 taken primary  responsibility to  pre-
 pare the environmental impact state-
 ment.

 $1508.16  Legislation.
  "Legislation" includes a bill or legis-
 lative  proposal to Congress developed
 by or with the significant cooperation
 and support of a Federal agency,  but
 does not include requests for appropri-
 ations.1 The test for significant cooper-
 ation is whether the proposal is in  fact
 predominantly  that of  the agency
 rather than another source. Drafting
 does not by itself constitute significant
 cooperation. Proposals for legislation
 include  requests  for  ratification of
 treaties. Only the  agency which  has
 primary responsibility for the subject
 matter involved will prepare a legisla-
 tive environmental impact statement.

 S 1508.17  Major Federal action.
  "Major Federal action" includes ac-
 tions  with effects that may  be major
 and which are potentially subject to
 Federal  control  and  responsibility.
 Major reinforces but does  not have a
 meaning independent  of significantly
 (§ 1508.25). Actions include the circum-
 stance where  the responsible officials
 fail to act and that failure to act is re-
  "The Council in consultation with OMB
had been prepared to propose this wording
and  $1508.12 for  comment.  Thereafter
Sierra Club v. Andrus (D.C. Cir. No. 75-1871,
May 15, 1978) was decided. We would appre-
ciate comment on the implications of that
case for these provisions.
viewable by  courts  or  administrative
tribunals under the  Administrative
Procedure Act or other applicable law
as agency action. If a Federal program
is delegated  or  otherwise  transferred
to State or local  government, unless
Congress intended otherwise, the Fed-
eral agency shall continue to be re-
sponsible for compliance with the Act
and shall insure the preparation of en-
vironmental impact statements if they
would be required but for the delega-
tion or transfer. If the Federal agency
may legally require the State or local
agency to follow  an  environmental
impact statement process, as  a condi-
tion of the delegation  or  transfer,  it
shall do so. If not, the Federal agency
shall prepare the statements (except
as provided in § 1506.5).
  (a) Actions include new and  continu-
ing activities, including projects and
programs entirely or partly financed,
assisted,  conducted,  regulated, or ap-
proved by federal agencies; new or re-
vised agency rules, regulations, plans,
policies, or procedures;  and legislative
proposals (§§1506.8, 1508.16). Actions
do  not  include  funding  assistance
solely in the form of general  revenue
sharing funds, distributed  under the
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act
of 1072, 31 U.S.C. 1221 et seq., with no
Federal agency control over the subse-
quent use of such funds.  Actions do
not iriclude  bringing civil  or  criminal
enforcement actions.
  (b)   Federal  actions  tend  to  fall
within one of the following categories:
  (1) Adoption of official policy, such
as rules, regulations, and interpreta-
tions adopted pursuant to  the Admin-
istrative Procedure Act, 5 UJS.C. 551 et
seq.; treaties and international conven-
tions  or  agreements;  formal  docu-
ments establishing an agency's policies
which will result  in or substantially
alter agency programs.
  (2) Adoption of formal plans, such as
official documents  prepared  or  ap-
proved by  federal  agencies which
guide or prescribe alternative uses of
federal resources,  upon which future
agency actions will be based.
  (3) Adoption of programs, such as a
group of concerted  actions to imple-
ment a specific policy or plan; system-
atic and connected agency decisions al-
locating  agency resources to imple-
ment a specific  statutory program or
executive directive.
  (4)  Approval  of  specific projects,
such  as construction or management
activities located  in a  defined  geo-
graphic area. Projects include actions
approved by permit or other regula-
tory decision as well as  federal and
federally assisted activities.

§1508.18  Matter.
  "Matter" includes for purposes  of
Part 1504:
  (a) With respect to the Environmen-
tal  Protection Agency,  any proposed
legislation, project,  action or regula-
tion as those terms are used in Section
309(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7609).
  (b)  With respect to all other agen-
cies,  any  proposed  major  federal
action to which  Section  102(2)(C) of
NEPA applies.

§ 1508.19  Mitigation.
  "Mitigation" includes:
  (a)  Avoiding  the impact altogether
by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
  (b)  Minimizing impacts by limiting
the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation.
  (c) Rectifying the impact by repair-
ing, rehabilitating, or restoring the im-
pacted environment.
  (d)  Reducing  or  eliminating  the
impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations  during  the
life of the action.
  (e) Compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute  re-
sources or environments.

§1508.20  NEPA process.
  "NEPA process" means all measures
necessary for compliance  with the  re-
quirements of Section 2 and Title I of
NEPA.

§1508.21  Notice of intent
  "Notice of Intent" means  a notice
that  an  environmental impact  state-
ment will be prepared and considered.
The notice shall briefly:
  (a) Describe the proposed action and
possible alternatives.
  (b)  Describe the agency's proposed
scoping  process  including whether,
when, and where any scoping meeting
will be held.
  (c) State the name and  address of a
person within  the  agency who  can
answer questions about the proposed
action and the environmental impact
statement.

§1508.22  Proposal.
  "Proposal" refers  to that  stage in
the development of an action when an
agency subject to the Act has a goal
and is actively considering one or more
alternative  means of  accomplishing
that goal and the effects can be mean-
ingfully evaluated. Preparation  of  an
environmental impact statement on a
proposal should be timed (§ 1502.5) so
that the final statement may be com-
pleted in time for the statement to be
included in any  recommendation  or
report on  the proposal.  A  proposal
may exist in fact as well as by agency
declaration that one exists.

§ 1508.23  Referring agency.
  "Referring agency" means the feder-
al  agency which  has referred any
matter to the Council after a determi-
nation that the matter is unsatisfac-
tory from the standpoint of  public
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
25246
          PROPOSED RULES
health or  welfare or  environmental
Quality.

§ 1508.24  Scope.
 'Scope  consists  of the range of ac-
tions,  alternatives,  and impacts to be
considered in an environmental impact
statement. The scope of an individual
statement may depend on its relation-
ships  to other statements  (§§ 1502.20
and 1508.26). In  scoping environmen-
tal impact  statements  agencies shall
consider 3 types of actions, 3 types of
alternatives, and 3 types of impacts.
They include:
  (a) Actions (other than unconnected
single actions) which may be:
  (1) Connected actions, which means
that  they   are closely related  and
therefore should be discussed in the
same  impact  statement. Actions  are
connected if they:
  (i) Automatically trigger other ac-
tions which may  require environmen-
tal impact statements.
  (ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless
other  actions are taken previously or
simultaneously.
  (iii)  Are interdependent parts of a
larger action and  depend on the larger
action for their justification.
  (2) Cumulative  actions, which when
viewed with other proposed  actions
have  cumulatively significant impacts
and should  therefore be discussed in
the same impact statement.
  (3)   Similar   actions,   which when
viewed with other reasonably foresee-
able or proposed  agency actions, have
similarities  that  provide a  basis  for
evaluating "Eheir environmental conse-
quences  together,  such  as common
timing or geography. An agency may
wish  to  analyze these actions in the
same impact statement. It  should do
so when the best way  to  assess  ade-
quately the combined impacts of simi-
lar actions  or reasonable alternatives
to such actions is to treat them  in a
single impact statement.
  (b)  Alternatives, which include: (1)
No action alternative. (2)  Other  rea-
sonable courses of actions. (3) Mitiga-
tion measures  (not in the  proposed
action).
  (c)  Impacts, which  may  be:  (1)
Direct. (2) Indirect. (3) Cumulative.

§1508.25  Significantly.
  "Significantly"  as used in NEPA re-
quires considerations of both context
and intensity.
  (a) Context This means that the sig-
nificance of an action  must be ana-
lyzed in several contexts such as soci-
ety as a whole (global, national), the
affected region, the affected interests,
and the  locality.  Significant  varies
with  the  setting  of  the  proposed
action. For instance, in the  case  of a
site-specific action, significance would
usually depend upon the effects in the
locale  rather than in the  world as a
whole. Both short- and long-term ef-
fects are relevant.
  (b) Intensity. This refers to the se-
verity of impact. Responsible officials
must bear in mind that more than one
agency may make decisions about par-
tial aspects of a major action. The fol-
lowing should be considered in evalu-
ating intensity:
  (1) Impacts that may be both benefi-
cial  and  adverse. A significant effect
may exist even if the Federal agency
believes that on balance the effect will
be beneficial.
  (2) The degree to which the  pro-
posed action  affects public health  or
safety.
  (3) Unique characteristics of the geo-
graphic area such as proximity to his-
toric sites, park  lands,  prime  farm
lands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers,
or ecologically critical areas.
  (4) The degree to which the effects
on the quality of the human environ-
ment are likely to be highly controver-
sial.
  (5) The degree to which the possible
effects on the human environment are
highly uncertain or involve unique  or
unknown risks.
  (6) The degree to which the action
may establish a precedent for future
actions with significant effects or rep-
resents a decision in principle about a
future consideration.
  (7) Whether the action is related  to
other  actions  with individually insig-
nificant but  cumulatively significant
impacts. Significance exists if it is rea-
sonable, to  anticipate  a cumulatively
significant impact on the environment.
Significance  cannot  be  avoided  by
terming an action temporary or by
breaking it  down into small compo-
nent parts.
  (8) Whether the action may have a
significant adverse effect on an area or
site  listed in or  eligible for listing  in
the  National Register  of  Historic
Places or may cause loss or destruction
of significant scientific,  cultural,  or
historical resources.
  (9) Whether the action may have a
significant adverse effect on the habi-
tat or an endangered or threatened
species that has been determined to  be
critical under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973.
  (10) Whether the action threatens a
violation of Federal, State, or local law
or requirements Imposed  for the pro-
tection of the environment.

$1508.26 Tiering.
  "Tiering" refers to the coverage  of
general matters  in broader  environ-
mental impact statements (such as na-
tional program or  policy statements)
with subsequent  narrower statements
or environmental analyses (such as re-
gional  or basinwide  program  state-
ments or ultimately site-specific state-
ments) incorporating by reference the
gereral discussions and concentrating
solely on the issues  specific  to the
statement   subsequently   prepared.
Tiering  is  appropriate when  the se-
quence of statements or analyses is:
  (a) From a program, plan, or policy
environmental impact statement to a
program, plan, or policy statement or
analysis of lesser scope or to a site-spe-
cific statement or analysis.
  (b) From an environmental impact
statement on a specific action at an
early stage (such as need  and site se-
lection) to a supplement (which is pre-
ferred) or a subsequent statement or
analysis  at a  later  stage  (such  as
design detail  and environmental miti-
gation). Tiering in such cases is appro-
priate when it helps the lead agency to
focus on the  issues which  are ripe for
decision and  exclude  from considera-
tion issues  already decided or not yet
ripe.
                INDE
Act..........	«..
Action	
Action-forcing...
Adoption......._...
Affected Environment...
Affecting ..........................
Agency Authority..........
Agency Capability	
Agency Compliance	,
Agency Procedures	
Agency Responsibility
Alternative!	
Appendices................
Apply NEPA Early In Proc-

Categorlcal Exclusion	
Circulating of Environmen-
  tal Impact Statement. •
Classified Information ...„__.
jCleanAirAct
Combining Documents.
Commenting..


Consultation Requirement..
Context
Cooperating Agency...
Cost-Benefit	
Council on Environmental
  Quality.
Cover Sheet....
Cumulative Sheet.
Dedsionmaklnr..
Decision point!—_	

Draft Environmental Impact
  Statement.
Early Application of HEPA-
Economlc Effect!.	*	
Effective Date	:..
Effect!	
Emergende!  ,,,_  „„,„',.	„
Endangered Species Aet__.__
Energy »».««.
Enviromacntal ^
1508.2
1508.17.1508.34
1500.1.1502.1
1500.4, 1500.5(h),
 1508.3
150J.l. 1502.16
1502.3,1508.3
1500.8
1501.2(a>, 1507.2
1507.1
1505.1,1507.3
1508.5
1501.2(0,1502.2,
 1502.10(e). 1502.14.
 1505.1(e>, 1507.2(d),
 1508.24(b)
1502.UXk>. 1502.18
1501.2

1500.4(p). 1500.5HC).
 1501.4
1500.4(0). 1500.5(1).
 1508.4
1502.19.1503.1.
 1503 A 1503.3,
 1503.4,1508.8(1)
1500.4(k>. ISOOJKg).
 1501.7(aX6).
 1502.26
1508.25(a>
1500.5(b>, 1501.Kb),
 1501.5(O. 1501.5(f),
 1501.8,1503.1(aXl>.
 1501.2,1508.»b>.
 1508.5
1502.23
1501.5(e>,
 1501.6(fU502.9(CX4>.
 1504.1.1504.2.
 1504.3.1508.9.
 1508.11.1507.3.
 1508.8,1508.23
1502.10(a). 1502.11
1508.7, 1508.24(a).
 1508.24(0
1505.1.1506.1
1505.1(b>
1508.24(»>
1502.9(a)

1501.2
1508.8
1506.12
1502.15.1508.8
1506.11
1503L25.1508.25(bX»)
1502.15(e)
1501.3.1501.4(b).
 1501.4(0.
 1508.2(bX4). 1508.9.
 1508.10
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 197*

-------
                                                             PROPOSED  RULES
25247
Environmental       Conse-
  quences.
Environmental Consultation
  Requirements.

Environmental Documents...
Environmental      Impact
  Statement.
Environmental
  Agency.
                Protection
Environmental  Review  Re-
  quirements.

Expediter..................................
Federal Agency ......................I*

Final Environmental Impact
  Statement.
Finding  of  No Significant
  Impact
Fish and Wildlife Coordina-
  tion Act.
Format for Environmental
  Impact Statement.
Freedom of Information Act.
Further Guidance ...................
General  Services  Adminis-
  tration.
Geographic..
Graphics......
Handbook ............... ..................
Human Environment..............
Impacts „.., .......... , ............ . ........
Implementing the Decision...
Incomplete  or Unavailable
  Information.
Incorporation by Reference..
Index .........................................
Indian Tribes . --------------------------
Intensity ........... ........................
Interdisciplinary   Prepara-
  tion.
Untied
1502 10(f) 1502 15

1500.4(10, 1500.5(g),
1501 7(a>(6)
1502.25
1608.10
1500.4. 1501.4(0.
1501.7, 1502.1.
1502.2, 1502.3.
1502 4 1502 5
1502 6 1502 7
1502 8 1502 9
1502.10, 1502.11.
1502 12 1502 13
1502 14 1502 15
1502 16 1502 17
1502 18 1502 19
1502.20, 1502.21,
1502 22 1502 23
1502.24. 1502.25.
1506.2(b>(4), 1506.3,
1506 8 1508 11
1602 ll(f) 1504 1
1604.3, 1506.7(0,
1506 8(bX4)
1506 8(d) 1506 9
1506 10 1508 18(a)
1500.4(k>, 1500.5(g),
1501 7(aX8
1508 25)
1501.8(0X2)
1508.12
1506.9
1502.9(b), 1503.1,
1503.4(b)
1500.4(q). 1500.5(1),
1501.4(6). 1508.13
1502.25
1502.10
1506.6
1506.7
1502.4(cX2)
1606 8(bX3)

1502.4(cXl)
15028
1506.7(a)
1502.3, 1508.14
1508.8, 1608.24(0
1505.3
1502.22
1500.4(1), 1502.21
1502.100)
1501.6, 1501.7(aXr)
1508. 25(b)
1502.6, 1503.17
INDEX -CM

Judicial Review 	
Legislation 	

Limitation on Action During
NEPA Process.






Major Federal Action 	
Mandate 	
Matter 	

Mitigation 	
Monitoring 	
National Historic Preserva-
tion Act.
National Register of Histori-
cal Places.
Natural or Depletable Re-
Need for Action 	
Non-Federal Sponsor 	
Notice of Intent 	
OMB Circular A-19 	
OMB Circular A-95 	
102 Monitor 	 	



Policy 	
Program Environmental
Impact Statement.
Programs 	
tlnued
1506.1
1501.5(b), 1506.2
1500.3
1500.5(c), 1501. Kc),
1501.5. 1501.6.
1501.7. 1501.8.
1504.3, 1506.2(b)(4),
1506.10(6), 1508.15
1500.5U), 1502.3,
1506 8, 1508.16,
1508.17(a)
1506.1
1502.10(h), 1502.17
1500.4(n>, 1500.5(h),
1501.2(d)(2),
1501.5(b), 1501.5(d),
1501.6. 1501.7(a)(l),
1501.8(c),
1502.15(0,
1503.1(a)(2),
1506.2(b),
1506.6(b)(3), 1508.5,
1508.17
1502.3. 1508.17
1500.3
1504.1, 1504.2, 1504.3,
1508.18
1502.24
1502.14(8). 1502.15(1),
1505.2(0, 1505.3,
1508.19
1505.2(C), 1505.3
1502.25
1508.25(b)(8)
1502.15(1)
1502.10(d), 1502.13
1508.20
1501.2(d>
1501.7, 1508.21
1506.8
1505.2, 1506.6(b)(3>(l)
1506.6(bX2>.
1506 7(c)
1506.12
1500.4(a), 1501.7(b).
1502.7
1502.4(a), 1503.5,
1506.3, 1508.17
1500.2, 1502.4(b),
1508.17(a)
1500.4(1), 1502.4,
1502.20, 1508.17
1502.4, 1508.17(b>
INDEX -Continued
Projects 	 1508.17
Proposal 	 	 	 1502.4, 1502.5, 1506.8,
1508.22
Proposed Action 	 1502.10(e), 1502.14
Public Health and Welfare.... 1504.1
Public Involvement 	 1501.4(6),
1503.1(a)(3>, 1S06.6
Purpose 	 1500.1, 1501.1, 1802.1,
1504.1
Purpose of Action 	 1502 10(d) 1502.13
Record of Decision 	 1505.2, 1506.1
Referrals 	 1504.1, 1504.2, 1504.3,
1506.3(c)
Referring Agency 	 „ 	 1504.1, 1504.2, 1504.3
Response to Comments 	 1503.4
Scientific Accuracy 	 1502 24
Scope 	 1502.4(a). 1502.9(a),
1508.24
Scoping 	 	 	 1500. 4(b), 1501. l(d),
1501.4(d). 1501.7,
1502.9(a), 1506.8(a)
Significantly 	 1502.3, 1508.25
Similar 	 „ 	 1508.24
Small Business Associations.. 1506.6(b)(3Xv>
Social Effects 	 1508.8
Specificity of Comments 	 1500.4(1). 1503.3
State and Local 	 	 	 1500.4(n>, 1500. 5(h),
1501.2(d)(2),
1501.5(b). 1501.5(d),
1501.7(a)(l),
1501.8(c),
1502.15(c),
1503.1(a)(2),
1506.2(b),
1506.6(b)(3), 1508.5.
1508.17
State and Local Fiscal As- 1508.17(a)
sistance Act.
Summary 	 , 	 1500.4(h), 1502. 10(b),
1502.12
Supplements to Environ- 1502.9(c)
mental Impact Statements.
Table of Contents 	 1502.10(0
Technological Development.. 1502.4(0(3)
Tiering 	 1500.4(1), 1502.4(d),
1502.20, 1508.26
Time Limits 	 1500 5(e), 1501.1(6),
1501.7(b)(2), 1501.8
Timing 	 1502.4, 1502.5,
1506.10
Treaties 	 1508.16
When to Prepare an Envi- 1501.3
ronment Impact State-
ment.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act... 1506.8(b)(2)
Wilderness Act 	 1506.8(b)(2)
Writing 	 1502.8
[PR Doc. 78-15700 Filed 6-8-78; 8:45 am]
                                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. HI-FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1978

-------
                                APPENDIX 15

            LIST OF ATTENDEES AT EIS MEETING DECEMiiKR  7-!:, 1977
NAME

Philip P. Sayre
Bill Rankin
Robert Beccurs
T. H. Row
Warren Zurn
Ronald L. Ballard
Wayne Hibbitts
G. W. Knighton
Joseph R. Binder
C. R. Boston
ORGANIZATION

Regional Environmental and
  Energy Officer
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare
50 Seventh St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Engineer
Department of Energy
1655 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Energy Conservation Specialist
Department of Energy
1655 Peachtree St., S. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Hd., Environmental Impact Section
Energy Div., Oak Ridge Nat'l. Lab
P. 0. Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

Energy Resource Development
  Specialist, Department of
  Energy
1655 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 3C3C9

Chief, Environ. Specialists Br.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D. C. 20460

Health Physicist
Department of Energy
Federal Bldg.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

Chief, Environmental Projects Br.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Bethesda, Maryland 21200

Chief, Environment Branch
Rural Electrification Adm.
South Agriculture Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20460

Project Manager, Energy Division
Oak Ridge Nat'l. Lab
P. 0, Box X
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
 TELEPHONE NO.

 Com. 881-3754
 FTS  245-3754
 Com. 881-4463
 FTS  257-4463
 Com.  881-2526
 Com. 615-483-8611
 Ext. 31423

FTS 850-1423

 Com. 881-4463
 FTS  257-4463
 FTS  492-7209



 Com. 615-483-8611
      Ext. 34175

 FTS  850-4175

 FTS  492-4824



 Com. 447-3446
 Com. 615-483-8611
      Ext. 36107

 FTS  850-6107

-------
Harry G. Arnold
Dr. Antohony Duorak
T. M. Bryan
James P. Iverson
David H. Densmore
R. H. Talley
Robert Forley
David P. Van Leuven
George Osborne
John F. Sullivan, Jr.
Geotheraal/Solar Environmental
  Project Manager
Oak Ridge National Lab
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

Project Leader
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass
Argonne, Illinois 60439

Environmental Coordinator
Federal Highway Admin.
Georgia Division
1422 W. Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Coordinator
Federal Highway Adm.
P. 0. Box 1079
Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Development Engineer
Federal Highway Adm.
1422 W. Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Location Engineer
Federal Hignway Adm.
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Engineer
Federal Highway Adm.
1720 Peachtree Rd.,N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Planning & Research Engineer
Federal Highway Adm.
P. 0. Box 1079
Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Environment Program Manager
Federal Highway Adm.
1720 Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Asst. Div. Administrator
Federal Highway Adm.
P. 0. Box 1079
Tallahassee, Florida  32302
Com. 615-483-8611
     Ext. 3-1423

FTS  850-1423

Com. 312-739-7711
     Ext. 4897

FTS  388-4897

Com. 881-4758
FTS  257-4758
Com. 224-8111
FTS  946-4326
FTS  257=4758
Com. 881-4791
FTS  257-4791
Com. 881-4067
FTS  257-4067
Com. 224-8111
FTS  946-4326
         4067
Com. 224-8111
FTS  946-4326

-------
Claude R. Moore, Jr., MAI
Hugh B. Hicks
Claude Terry, Manager
Luther S. Winsor
Claude Reams
Fred Klimas
James H. Lee
Deniae P. Meridith
Roy Almdale
John Fischer
Real Estate Officer
U. S. Postal Service
Federal Annex, Rm. 416
Atlanta, Georgia  30304

Realty Management and
  Acquisition Specialist
U, S. Postal Service
Federal Annex Bldg., Rm. 416
Atlanta, Georgia  30304

Claude Terry & Associates
2220 Parklake Dr., #330
Atlanta, Georgia  30345

Chief, Resource Area Studies
  Division
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia  30303

Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 Intnmat'l Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia  30033

Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 Internal-. :l Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia  30303

Regional Environmental Officer
U. S. Department of Interior
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia  30303

Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land Management
7981 Eastern Avenue
Silver Springs, Md. 20902

Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Com. 242-5243
FTS  221-5243
Com. 221-5243
FTS  242-5243
Com. 938-1490
Com. 221-4778
FTS  242-4778
Com. 221-6928
Com. 221-4778
FTS  242-4778
Com. 221-4524
FTS  242-4524
Com. 301-427-7540
FTS      427-7540
Com. 221-4711
FTS  224-4711
Com. 221-4711
FTS  242-4711

-------
David S. Hamlltpn
Steven E. Price
William C. Bellinger
Alan H. Epstein
Thomas D. Sims
Louise Franklin
Robert J. Hunter
Robert Flanders
R. Michael Hartman
Dr. Roy 0. Ball
Gerald Bonn
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Environmental Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Recreation Planner
U. S. Dept. of Interior
148 International Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Manager, S.E. Regional Office
Environmental Research & Tech-
  nology, Inc.
296 Interstate No.
Atlanta, Georgia 30339

Community Planner
AFRCE-ER
526 Title Bldg.
30 Pryor St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Sr. Planner
Claude Terry & Associates
2220 Parklake Dr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30345

Aquatic Ecologist
Claude Terry & Associates
2220 Parklake Dr., Suite )30
Atlanta, Georgia 30345

Biologist
Geo-Marine, Inc.
777 South Central Exp. #2G
Richardson, Texas 75080

Manager, Envirosphere Co.
302 Technology Park
Atlanta-Norcross, Georgia 30072

Asst. Prof., Univ. of Tenn.
Dept. of Civil Eng.
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916

Biologist
Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc.
2000 Clearview Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
Com. 221-6928
FTS  242-6928
Com. 221-6928
FTS  258-6928
Com. 221-4778
Com. 955-3121
Com. 221-6821
FTS  245-6821
Com. 938-1490
Com. 938-1490
Com. 214-234-2722
Com. 447-6639
Com. 615-974-5187
Com. 455-8555

-------
George E. Bowen
Howard E. Lawlaj:
H. E. Zittel
Jane Culpepper
Dr. Marty Wanielista
Leonard R. Teel
Richard Briefmaser
Kirk Holland
Kenneth W. Prest, Jr.
Hal Maggied
Joshua I. Smith
Asst. Prof., Univ. of Term.
1515 Cumberland Ave.
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916

Asst. Curator of Education
Atlanta Zoological Park
800 Cherokee Ave., S. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30315

Project Manager
Union Carbide
P. 0. Box X
ORNL
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

President
Georgia Animal Welfare Alliance
7340 Twin Branch Rd., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30328

Prof., Florida Tech. Univ.
College of Engineering
Orlando, Florida 32809

Reporter
Atlanta Journal
P. 0. Box 4689
Atlanta, Georgia 30302

Engineer
Jacksonville Electric Authority
233 W. Duval St.
Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Dept. Director
Radian Corp
Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78700

President
The Environmental Licensing
  Group, Inc.
P. 0. Box 7151
Pensacola, Florida 32504

Senior Policy Analyst/Region-
  al Economist
Envirosphere Company
145 Technology Park/Atlanta
Norcross, Georgia 30092

Vice President
Herner & Company
2100 M St., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
Com. 974-5227
Com. 622-5115
Com. 615-483-8611
Ext. 3-1423

FTS  850-1423
Com. 394-3609
Com. 305-275-2155
           or 2841
Com. 572-5361
Com. 904-633-4513
Com. 512-454-4797
Com. 904-433-0968
Com. 449-6639
Com. 202-293-2600

-------
Charles Williams
Ben L. Smith
Paul Edens
Robin L. Fletcher
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.
Paul G. Stough
R. M. Gatewood
Robert E. Kearse
Robert L. Wong
Peter Malphurs
                                 Com. 350-5276, 51
                                 FTS  350-5276, 51
                                 Com. 615-741-3653
Environmental Coordinator
U. S. Coast Guard
51 S. W. 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130

Administrator
Environmental Planning Div.
Tenn. Dept. of Transportation
516 Doctor's Bldg.
Nashville, Tennessee 37200
Director, Research & Planning    Com. 741-3339(615)
Tennessee Dept. of Transportation
444 Doctor's1 Bldg.
Nashville, Tennessee 37200
Environmental Specialist
Florida Dept. of Environmental
  Regulation
2562 Executive Center Circle E.
Tallahassee, Florida 32300
Administrator
Power Plant Siting
Fla. Dept. of Envir. Reg.
2562 Executive Center Circle E.
Tallahassee, Florida 32300

Environmental Coordinator
Alabama Highway Department
11 S. Union St.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Asst. Surveys & Plans Engineer
Alabama Highway Department
11 S. Union St.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Land Planner
Veterans Administration
730 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Chief,Envir. Planning Div,
U.S. Air Force Regional Civil
  Engineer - Eastern Region
AFRCE-ER, 526 Title Bldg.
30 Pryor St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Asst. Chief, CAB
Department of Transportation
Fulton County Airport
65 Aviation Circle
Atlanta, Georgia 30336
                                                                 Com. 904-487-1580
                                 Com. 904-487-1580
                                 Com. 832-5593
                                 Com. 832-5571
                                 Com. 404-881-2930
                                 FTS      257-2930
                                 Com. 221-6776
                                 FTS  242-6776
                                 696-4634

-------
U. S.
345 CQURTLANE)
ATLANTA, GfORfllA 3Q308
              PROTECTION AGENCY
St>eppar4 N. Moore
Gerald  T, Miller
Carolyn


Willie Karri*


Mark Thompson


Christine, Beachy


Mary A. V*ale.


Carl R. p12
257-3012

881-7458
257-7458

881-4450
257-4450

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-2017
257-2017

881-7458
257-7458

-------
                                 8
U. S. EPA (Cont'd)
      Patricia Rogencranz
Lib rarian
      Thomas A.  Strickland     EIS Review Coordinator (Air)
      Hagan Thompson


      Robert B.  Howard


      C.  L. Wakamo


      Robert C.  Cooper


      John P.  Herrmann


      Ronald J.  Mikulak


      Andrea J.  Eberhardt


      T.  Dale Lewis


      Clara DeLay


      Stephanie  Lankford


      Matthew J,  Robbins


      E.  T. Heinen
Asst. Dir., Public Affaiis


Chief, EIS Preparation Section


Chief, Radiation Branch


EIS Project Officer


Agent


EIS Project Office.


Project Office, Phosphate Unit


Clerk-typist


EIS Specialist


EIS Assistant


Director, Civil Rights


Chief, Ecological Review Er.
Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS

Com.
FTS
881-4216
257-4216

881-3286
257-3286

881-3004
257-3004

881-7458
257-7458

881-3067
257-3067

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-7458
257-7458

881-3053
257-3053

881-2643
257-2643

-------
C. L. Irwin
C. M. "Tony" Krsmer
Robert Cook*
D. H. White
William Stoken
Ben A. Cook
W. J. Davenport
Russell M. 0. Jacobsen
Robert Lunsford
Jesse P. Warders
Richard C. Becker
Environmental Adraistrator
Florida Dept. of Transportation
Haydon Burns Bldg.
Tallahassee, Florida 32304

F&W Biologist
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
17 Executive Park Dr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30328

Endangered Species Specialist
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Dept.
17 Executive Park Dr., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30328

Liason Officer, Georgia
U. S. Bureau of Mines
Rm. 431
19 M. L. King, Jr., Dr., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Environmental Officer
US Dept. HUD, Room 602
1801 Main St.(324 Pittsdalne Rd,
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Environmental Officer
HUD Area Office
P. 0. Box 1044
Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Environmental Office
DHUD
415 N. Edgeworth St.
Greensboro, N. C.

Environmental Officer
HUD Atlanta RO
1371 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Officer
HUD
15 S. 20th St.
Birmingham, Alabama 35225

Deputy Area Director
DHUD
601 S. Floyd St.
Louisville, Kentucky 40201

Environmental Officer
DHUD Area Office
1111 Northshore Dr.
Knoxvllle, Tennessee 37919
                                                                 Com. 487-1435
Com. 881-4781
FTS  257-4781
Com. 881-4291
FTS  257-4291
Com. 821-6204
FTS  242-6204
Com. 803-765-5595
FTS  677-5595
                                                                )
Com. 502-582-5251
FTS  352-5251
FTS 699-5377
Com. 851-3521
FTS  257-3521
Com. 254-1619
FTS  229-1619
Com. 502-582-5251
FTS  352-5251
Com. 615-637-9300
     Ext. 1263

FTS  854-1263

-------
                                10
Jody B. WilHqms
Harry Walls
James V. Spann
Ivar Iveraon
Buddy E. Arbuckle
John Ogden
Carol Slipley
Bill Wisenbaker
John C. Cole
M. E. Cribbs
Environmental Aide
DHUD
1371 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Officer
DHUD
230 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Environmental Officer
DHUD, Atlanta Area Office
230 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Environmental Standards Officer
DHUD
1375 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Officer
DHUD, Jax. Area Office
661 Riverside Ave.
Jacksonville, Florida 32217

Environmental Protection Spec.
Economic Development Aden.
1365 Peachtree St., Ste. 700
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Protection Spec.
Economic Development Ad,n.
1365 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Protection Spec.
Economic Development Ad,n.
1365 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Regional Environmentalist
EDA - U. S. Dept. of Commerce
1365 Peachtree St., N. 35.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Soil Conservationist
USDA - SCS
P. 0. Box 610
Jackson, Mississippi 39J05
Com. 881-3541
FTS  257-3541
Com. 221-6629
FTS  242-6629
Com. 221-6629
FTS  242-6629
Com. 881-3521
FTS  257-3521
Com. 904-791-2610
FTS  946-2610
Com. 881-7352
FCS 257-7352
Com. 881-7316
FTS  257-7316
Com. 881-7158
FTS  257-7158
Com. 881-7667
Firs  257-7667
Com. 601-969-4335
FTS  490-4335

-------
                                11
L. Pete Heard
Richard GJ.edJiJ.il
James M. Kesecker
Danny Averett
Arnold M. Snowden
John P. Burt
Ronald C. Page
John J. Garrett
Archie Weeks
T. Allan Heard
Gerald Montgomery
Environmental Coordinacor
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 1208
Gainesville, Florida 32602

Soil Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 1208
Gainesville, Florida 32602

Staff Leader (Planning)
Soil Conservation Service
240 Stoneridge Dr.
Columbia, South Carolina 29210

Sanitary Engineer
Soil Conservice Service
P. 0. Box 610
Jackson, Mississippi 39205

Watershed Planning Specialist
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 6567
Fort Worth, Texas 76115

Sanitary Eng./Env. Specialist
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 6567
Fort Worth, Texas 76115

Asst. State Conservationist,
Water Resources
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 832
Athens, Georgia 30601

RB-WP Staff Leader
Soil Conservation Service
P. 0. Box 27307
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

Civil Engineer
Soil Conservation Service
Lexington, Kentucky 40504

Asst. State Conservationist
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
333 Waller Ave.
Lexington, Kentucky 40504

Biologist
Soil Conservation Servicr
675 V«  S. Courthouse
Nashville, Tennessee 37208
                                                                       + 377SV12
Com. 765-5684
FTS  677-5684
Com. 601-969-4339
FTS  490-4339
FTS 334-5429
    334-5431
FTS 334-5371
Com. 546-2276
FTS  250-2276
Com. 919-755-4527
FTS  672-4527
Com. 606-237-2750
FTS  355-2750
Com. 606-233-2747
FTS  355-2747
Com. 251-5873
FTS  852-5874

-------
                                  12
John M. SafJcif, Jr. (Marc)
Ray Swicegood
Bobby Reeves
Pat Pickering
Roger D.
Jack E. Kedei
Frank £. Chriap
St. Clair
William C. Holiday
Glen Coffee
 Resource Conservationist
 Soil Conservation Service
 675 U. S. Courthouse
 Nashville, Tennessee 37203

 Watershed Staff Leader
 Soil Conservation Service
 P. 0. Box 311
 Auburn, Alabama 36830

 Asst. State Cons, for
   Water Resources
 Soil Conservation Service
 P. 0. Box 311
 Auburn, Alabama 36830

 Administrative Asst.
 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
 30 Pryor Street
 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

 Engineer
 U. :S. Army Corps of Engineers
 Ohio Riv^r Div.
 550 Main Street
 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

 Chief, Env. Mgmt. Branch
 Corps of Engineers
 Ohio River Div.
 575 E. Main St.
 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

 Chief, Env. Analysis Section
 U. S. Corps of Engineers
 P. 0. Box 59
 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

 Chief, Env. Analysis Branch
 Vicksburg Dist., Corps of Eng.
 P. 0. Box 60
 Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

 Chief, Project Planning
 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
 Huntington District
 502 8th St.
 Huntington, West Virginia 25703

 Biologist
US Army Corps of Engineers
 Env. Studies & Eval. Sect.
 Mobile, Alabama 36628
Com. 615-251-7241
FTS  852-7241
Com. 821-8070
FTS  534-4542
FTS  534-4542
Com., 221-6711
FTS  242-6711
FTS  684-3075
FTS  678-3008
Com. 502-582-5696
FTS  352-5696
Com. 636-1311
     Rcy 655

FTS  542-4544

Com. 304-529-5644
FTS 924-5644
Com. 205-690-2729
FTS  534-2729

-------
                               13
Idtrin Keppnar
Charles H. Harria
Moray L. Harrall
Garald L. Ataar, PhD
Michael K. Aahar
Paul Bradlay
Maurice Siapaon
Frad R. Horn
Ray Hedrick
Thoaaa J. O'Mail
                                 Com. 205-690-2584
                                 FTS  534-2584
                                 Com. 636-1311-285
                                 FTS  8-946-3615
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile District
Mobile, Alabama 36623

Chief, Env. Analysis Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 80
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

Chief, Env. Section
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville, District
Jacksonville, Florida 32201

Biologist
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville  District
P. 0. Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
General Engineer
U. S. Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Bx. 2127
Huntington, West Virginia 25721  Com. 527-5207

Civil Engineer                   Com. 690-2723
Corps of Engineers, Mobile Dist. FTS  534-2723
P. 0. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 36628
                                 FTS  946-3453
Biologist
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37200

Civil Engineer, Operations Br.
S. Atlantic Div., Cof E
30 Pryor St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                 Com. 615-251-5181
                                 FTS  852-5181
                                 Com. 221-6744
                                 FTS  242-6744
Ecologist, Planning Br.          Com. 615-251-5011
Corps of Engineers, Nashville Dist.   FTS 852-5011
P. 0. Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202
Water Resources Planner
U. S. Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 2127
Huntington, West Virginia 25721
                                 FTS  529-5639

-------
                                 14
Herbert T. DeRlgt
Durley McLarty
Andrew V. Grosso
Stephen J. Morrison
Kenneth E. MeIntyre
Robert Montgomery
Rudy E. Stlne
A. Elaine Gilbert
Robert Taylor
Supervisor, Biologists           FTS
Corps of Engineers, Savannah Dist.
200 E. Julian St.
Savannah, Georgia 31402
     248-8371
Supervisor, Civil Engineers
Chief Plan Formulation Sect.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
668 Clifford Davis Fed. Bldg.
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Chief, Env. Resources Sect.
Corps of Engineers
Memphis District
668 Federal Bldg.
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Environmentalist
U. S. Corps of Engineers
Charleston District
126 Folly Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29402

Brigadier General, Div. Eng.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
30 Pryor St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Sanitary Engineer
U. S. Army Forces Command
Attn:  AFEN-EQ
Ft. McPherson, Georgia 30330

Chief, Env. Control Office
U. S. Army - Ft. McPherson
Ft. McPherson, Georgia 30330
AF2K-FE-C

Realty Specialist
General Services Administration
1776 Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Protection Spec.
National Park Service
1895 Phoenix Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
Com. 521-3831
FTS  222-3831
Com. 901-521-3857
FTS  222-3857
Com. 577-4171
FTS  677-4259
Com. 221-6711
ITS  242-6711
Com. 752-3375
         2195
Com. 752-3702
FTS  AV 588-3702
Com. 881-7222
ITS  257-7222
Com. 996-2520

-------
                                 15
Bennie C. Ke«l
Nicholas C. Yost
W. S. Tucker
Kleob Loflin
Floyd Hardy
Tom Barbar
Charlotte Abrams
Randy F. Powers
Robert Howarth
Mary Anne Neville
Chief, Interagency
  Archaeological Services
National Park Service
1895 Phoenix Blvd.
Atlanta, Georgia 30349

General Counsel
Council on Env. Quality
722 Jackson PI., N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Manager, Env. Affairs
Florida Power & Light Co.
P. 0. Box 013100
Miami, Florida 33101

Plan Representative
Urban Mass Trans. Adm.
1770 Peachtree St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Chief, Env. Analysis Bureau
Georgia Dept. of Transportation
2 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Program Planner
Georgia Office of Energy
  Resources
270 Washington St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Geologist
Georgia Dept. of Natural
  Resources, Geological Div.
19 M. L. King, Jr. Dr.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Recreation Planner
Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources
Parks & Historic Sites Div. 707-4
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Wildlife Biologist
Ga. Game & Fish Div.
Gainesville, Georgia 30501
Com.
     996-2520
      Ext. 346
                                                                 FTS   260-9346
Com.
FTS
     202-633-7032
      ii   ti
Com. 305-552-4060
Com.
FTS
     881-3948
     257-3948
Com. 696-4634
Com. 656-5176
Com. 656-3214
Com. 656-7092
Com. 532-5304
Biologist/Planner                Com.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
     656-5164

-------
                                    16
Sam Williams
Dan Simpkins
Nancy L. Levin
Gail Morgan Thimmis
Sam Chapman
Ray Siewert
Jack Wolfe
Ted Kaufmann
Robert F. Williams
Hans Raum
Asst. Administrator
Georgia State Clearinghouse
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Archeological Resource
 Reviewer
Georgia DNR/HPS
Room 103,Martha Moore Hall
West Georgia College
Carrolton, Georgia 30117

Asst. Planner
Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Environmental Reviewer
Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S. S.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Resource Conservationist
Dept. of Natural Resources
Soil Conservation Service
Rt. 4, Box 527
Gainesville, Georgia 30501

Review Coordinator
 Con. 656-3855
 834-6835
 FTS 232-1436
 Com. 656-4810
 Com. 656-2840
Con. 656-5164
 FTS 250-2114
 Com. 656-5162
                                Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
                                270 Washington St., S. W.
                                Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Group Leader
Wilderness & Sp. Areas
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Coordinator
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Rm. 713
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Environmental Coordinator
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Director, Planning & Budget
U. S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Rd., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
 Com. 881-4278
 FTS 256-4663
 Com. 881-2242
 FTS  257-2242
 Com. 881-2242

-------
                                17
Wade B. Rlggs
John M. Derapsey
George Altman
W. H. Ballew
Bill Harris
Tom Wojtulik
Sam H. Calhoun
Donald S. Stinnett
David Gengozian
Eric L. Meyer
David Hoglund
Chief, Airport Planning
Federal Aviation Adm.
Box 18621
Memphis, Tennessee 38138

Chief, Airports Dist. Office
Federal Aviation Adm.
Box 18621
Memphis, Tennessee 38138

Chief, Planning Section
Airports District Office
Federal Aviation Adm.
1568 Willingham Dr.
College Park, Georgia 30337

Planning Engineer
Federal Aviation Adm.
1568 Willingham Dr.
College Park, Georgia 30337

Flood Insurance Adm.
Federal Insurance Adm.
1371 Peachtree St. N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
FTS 521-3495
Com. 901-521-3495
FTS  222-3495
Com. 763-7631
FTS  246-7631
Com. 763-7631
FTS  246-7631
Com. 881-2391
FTS  257-2391
Assessment and Compliance Staff  Com. 615-755-3148
TVA - Environmental Planning     FTS  852-755-3148
272 401B
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Environmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority
272 401 Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Power Supply Engineer
TVA
415 Power Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Environmental Engineer
TVA
303 Power Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401

Hydrologist
U. S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia 22092

Environmental Scientist
U. S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia 22070
Com. 615-755-3147
FTS  854-3147
Com. 755-2737
Com. 615-755-3331
FTS  854-3331
Com. 703-860-7556
FTS  928-7556
Com. 703-860-6464
FTS  928-6464

-------
                                   18
Rale Booth
Robert Reiner
R. L. Ramsey
Joe Guthrie
Ozzie Gray
Planner
CARCOG/SETDD
413 James Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37415

Economist
CARCOG/SETDD
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

Regional Land Use Planner
CARCOG/SETDD
735 Broad St.
423 James Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

Planning Director
CARCOG/SETDD
413 James Bldg.
735 Broad St.
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

Coordinator, Env. Assessment
N. C. Dept. of Natural Resources
  and Contra. Dev.
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Com,. 615-266-5781
Com., 615-266-5781
Com. 615-266-5781
Com. 615-266-5781
Com. 919-733-2955
C. '™~<*bAXA^ <*> <
               C

   COlA^-^   \
                                               A
                                                D
  2  16
                                                                S
        *U.S.GOVERNMENTPRINnNGOFnCE:1978-7't7-'+»t6/ 6 077 REGION NO. 4

-------